-
NudeCelebForum has been moved from the vBulletin to the XenForo platform. For additional information, see: NCF Moved To XenForo
-
Welcome to the forum!
You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
-
You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!
-
Now available to Registered Users and Senior Members is Celebrity/Supermodel Fake Images, Videos and Gifs pinned at the top of Misc Groups & Shows
What to do about Taiwan?
- Thread starter The Crusher
- Start date
Red Horse
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 1
In the wider spectrum, the question is: Does one superpower (the U.S.) go up against another (China) to preserve a small country's democracy? If it's possible that this could become a larger, "hot" (read: nuclear) war, is it worth it to put the whole world at risk? I can't answer that question myself.
By the way, cableguy, last I looked, you started a war in 1812---which you lost lol.
By the way, cableguy, last I looked, you started a war in 1812---which you lost lol.
singhr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 402
- Reaction score
- 326
You said a mouthful. The US Government does everything does for economic gain even though it trys to appear as though it does it the common good of man. If the US saw that the loss of Quebec would have affected them in any way, then you'd be damn sure that there'd be an intervention.Reverend James said:
Take the blinders off buddy and see what actually happens. Offence intended
Reverend James
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 54
singhr said:You said a mouthful. The US Government does everything does for economic gain even though it trys to appear as though it does it the common good of man. If the US saw that the loss of Quebec would have affected them in any way, then you'd be damn sure that there'd be an intervention.
Take the blinders off buddy and see what actually happens. Offence intended
Lumber, electricity, produce, dairy, annoying pop singers, ugly smoking tourists in Speedos... those were the commodities involved. The trade with a nation of 30 million versus select commodities would not have sparked a military intervention, funds may have been slid towards whichever side they wanted to triumph, but no soldiers would have crossed the border. Taiwan does not count as even a negligible trade partner but China does. Many American based corporation have manufacturing plants in Taiwan, but it is not worth intervening militarily... which is the focus of this thread.
And, yet again, I take no offence to comments made by strangers on the internet... <edit> ooops... missed the smiley part there... letting work frustrations come through in my forum'ing again...
Last edited:
The Crusher
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 731
Here's an excellent article that fills in a lot of blanks on this topic:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=7446
This conflict was initially a result of the cold war. This is why the US fought in Vietnam and Korea, and why we support Taiwan. HOWEVER, this has become an economic conflict. China is threatening the US's position as ruler of the world. The ruler of the world is no longer the one with military superiority. The nuclear stalmate has negated that. No, the ruler of the world controls the money. Taiwan is purely symbolic and is China's attempt to show the world who's boss. Believe it or not, so is the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
I don't believe that China is interested in dominating the world physically like Hitler did back in the 30's. They also are not interested in dictating to the world their socio-economic policies on the rest of the world like the Soviet Union during most of the 20th century. If you study Chinese history, you will find that China is a very introverted culture. They feel that the have a very unique culture and don't like to be influenced by outsiders. Their "One-China Policy" is an off-shoot of this ideology. That's why they built the Great Wall of China.
Now the interesting thing here is that the Chinese Communist Government, over time, has come to realize that in order for their version of a utopian society to succeed and be sustained, they have to give their people what they want. What do the Chinese people want? The same things we all want. The opportunity to be land-owners. The ability to choose where we live, what we buy and to live a comfortable life-style of our choosing. Everybody is willing to give up some freedoms to obtain these things. Do you think the majority of Chinese people give a shit who their politicians are. As long as they have the opportunity to drive a nice car, watch cable TV, and buy an Ipod, they really don't give a fuck that their elections consist of one party politicians. Hell, it's the same thing in the US. The US has the lowest voter turn-out rate of any country that has so-called "free" elections and we essentially have a one-party system too. Is there really any difference between Democrats and Republicans or between George W. and John Kerry? The Chinese have done something that Communist USSR and Capitalist USA have not be able to do. They have been able to combine the govenmental control of Communism with the freedom of choice of Capitalism. They have created a stable middle-class.
Communism denied choice and tried to make everyone equal; no land-ownership, no middle-class. The capitalist US was able to create a relavent middle-class. However, the natural evolution of a capitalist society where the economy is driven by the basic tenants of supply & demand is now starting to crumble. What good does it do me to walk into any one of a half-dozen 100,000 square foot grocery stores that are in my town and have a choice of over a dozen types of toilet paper when I've been out of work for two years because my job has been outsourced to India where people do the same job for 1/10th of what I was getting paid to do (no, this hasn't actually happened to me, but to a lot of other people I know).
The deathnell to America's position as a economic superpower is Wal-Mart. Stick with me on this. Here in the US, who hasn't seen the proliferation of Wal-Mart and Home Depot? These super big box stores are stocked with almost every product imaginable. Great, these stores give me thousands of choices at the lowest price. But what is this really doing. The thousands of Wal-Marts stores allows the company to purchase products at a lower wholesale price through greater quantities and they then turn around and can offer a lower retail price. This eventually puts their competitors out of business. This in turn puts people out of work. Now Wal-Mart tends to stock a lot of Made-in-the-USA products, but a lot are also foreign-made. This does two things. Their purchase of large quantities of foreign-made consumer goods puts more pressure on US manufacturers and this results in layoff as these companies try to stay competitive. This also causes the US to import more products than they export. As more and more Americans become unemployed or are forced to take lower paying jobs, the middle-class shrinks and these big box Wal-Marts and Home Depots will start to close up as the population based with the disposable income to maintain these stores shrinks.
O.kay, this brings us back to Taiwan. The US has it's largest trade deficit ever. China has a trade surplus. If China is allowed to absorb Taiwan and it's economy, it can potentially alter the balance of power between China and the US and displace the US as the global economic dictator and no longer allow the US to be the "Master of it's Own Domain", so to speak.
Here's another article that provides more info on this:
Taiwan decries new law as China warns U.S.
By TIM JOHNSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
BEIJING - Angry Taiwanese lawmakers burned China's flag in protest Monday, and the island denounced a new anti-secession law in Beijing as a "serious provocation"; Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, meanwhile, warned the United States to stay on the sidelines of the dispute.
Cabinet spokesman Cho Jung-tai, an aide to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, called the new law "tantamount to an authorization of war." The law sets conditions for launching a military attack to pull the independently governed island under China's wing by force.
Politicians in Taipei made plans to put as many as a million demonstrators on the streets March 26 to protest the law, a tactic taken from the playbook of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong who have been a thorn in Beijing's side.
At a once-a-year news conference, Wen described the anti-secession law approved earlier in the day by the National People's Congress as "by no means a war bill." He said China would strive to ensure that no fighting broke out along the Taiwan Strait.
"So long as there is a ray of hope, we will do our utmost to promote a peaceful reunification," he said.
In an expression of China's growing military confidence, Wen, nonetheless, warned the United States to stay out of the dispute over Taiwan, indicating that China no longer may fear the United States militarily.
The Bush administration expressed concern Monday about the law.
"We do view the adoption of the anti-
secession law as something that is unfortunate and not helpful to encouraging peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We don't believe anyone should be taking unilateral steps or make unilateral changes that increase tensions."
Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to discuss the new law with Chinese officials when she stopped in China later this week.
China claims Taiwan is a renegade province, and it fears that letting the island out of its grasp could spark secession drives in other regions, such as Tibet, and weaken the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party.
Taiwan, an island of 23 million people with nearly 13 times greater per-capita income than the mainland, has governed itself for more than five decades and says it already is a sovereign country. A statement issued Monday by Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council called Beijing's contention that the two sides belong to "one China" a fiction.
The United States has sold Taiwan billions of dollars in armaments in recent decades and is obligated by Congress under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to help the island defend itself. Washington has urged both sides to resolve their differences peacefully.
-end of article-
History has shown that empires do not last forever. Could this situation over Taiwan signal the beginning of the end of the American empire?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=7446
This conflict was initially a result of the cold war. This is why the US fought in Vietnam and Korea, and why we support Taiwan. HOWEVER, this has become an economic conflict. China is threatening the US's position as ruler of the world. The ruler of the world is no longer the one with military superiority. The nuclear stalmate has negated that. No, the ruler of the world controls the money. Taiwan is purely symbolic and is China's attempt to show the world who's boss. Believe it or not, so is the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
I don't believe that China is interested in dominating the world physically like Hitler did back in the 30's. They also are not interested in dictating to the world their socio-economic policies on the rest of the world like the Soviet Union during most of the 20th century. If you study Chinese history, you will find that China is a very introverted culture. They feel that the have a very unique culture and don't like to be influenced by outsiders. Their "One-China Policy" is an off-shoot of this ideology. That's why they built the Great Wall of China.
Now the interesting thing here is that the Chinese Communist Government, over time, has come to realize that in order for their version of a utopian society to succeed and be sustained, they have to give their people what they want. What do the Chinese people want? The same things we all want. The opportunity to be land-owners. The ability to choose where we live, what we buy and to live a comfortable life-style of our choosing. Everybody is willing to give up some freedoms to obtain these things. Do you think the majority of Chinese people give a shit who their politicians are. As long as they have the opportunity to drive a nice car, watch cable TV, and buy an Ipod, they really don't give a fuck that their elections consist of one party politicians. Hell, it's the same thing in the US. The US has the lowest voter turn-out rate of any country that has so-called "free" elections and we essentially have a one-party system too. Is there really any difference between Democrats and Republicans or between George W. and John Kerry? The Chinese have done something that Communist USSR and Capitalist USA have not be able to do. They have been able to combine the govenmental control of Communism with the freedom of choice of Capitalism. They have created a stable middle-class.
Communism denied choice and tried to make everyone equal; no land-ownership, no middle-class. The capitalist US was able to create a relavent middle-class. However, the natural evolution of a capitalist society where the economy is driven by the basic tenants of supply & demand is now starting to crumble. What good does it do me to walk into any one of a half-dozen 100,000 square foot grocery stores that are in my town and have a choice of over a dozen types of toilet paper when I've been out of work for two years because my job has been outsourced to India where people do the same job for 1/10th of what I was getting paid to do (no, this hasn't actually happened to me, but to a lot of other people I know).
The deathnell to America's position as a economic superpower is Wal-Mart. Stick with me on this. Here in the US, who hasn't seen the proliferation of Wal-Mart and Home Depot? These super big box stores are stocked with almost every product imaginable. Great, these stores give me thousands of choices at the lowest price. But what is this really doing. The thousands of Wal-Marts stores allows the company to purchase products at a lower wholesale price through greater quantities and they then turn around and can offer a lower retail price. This eventually puts their competitors out of business. This in turn puts people out of work. Now Wal-Mart tends to stock a lot of Made-in-the-USA products, but a lot are also foreign-made. This does two things. Their purchase of large quantities of foreign-made consumer goods puts more pressure on US manufacturers and this results in layoff as these companies try to stay competitive. This also causes the US to import more products than they export. As more and more Americans become unemployed or are forced to take lower paying jobs, the middle-class shrinks and these big box Wal-Marts and Home Depots will start to close up as the population based with the disposable income to maintain these stores shrinks.
O.kay, this brings us back to Taiwan. The US has it's largest trade deficit ever. China has a trade surplus. If China is allowed to absorb Taiwan and it's economy, it can potentially alter the balance of power between China and the US and displace the US as the global economic dictator and no longer allow the US to be the "Master of it's Own Domain", so to speak.
Here's another article that provides more info on this:
Taiwan decries new law as China warns U.S.
By TIM JOHNSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
BEIJING - Angry Taiwanese lawmakers burned China's flag in protest Monday, and the island denounced a new anti-secession law in Beijing as a "serious provocation"; Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, meanwhile, warned the United States to stay on the sidelines of the dispute.
Cabinet spokesman Cho Jung-tai, an aide to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, called the new law "tantamount to an authorization of war." The law sets conditions for launching a military attack to pull the independently governed island under China's wing by force.
Politicians in Taipei made plans to put as many as a million demonstrators on the streets March 26 to protest the law, a tactic taken from the playbook of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong who have been a thorn in Beijing's side.
At a once-a-year news conference, Wen described the anti-secession law approved earlier in the day by the National People's Congress as "by no means a war bill." He said China would strive to ensure that no fighting broke out along the Taiwan Strait.
"So long as there is a ray of hope, we will do our utmost to promote a peaceful reunification," he said.
In an expression of China's growing military confidence, Wen, nonetheless, warned the United States to stay out of the dispute over Taiwan, indicating that China no longer may fear the United States militarily.
The Bush administration expressed concern Monday about the law.
"We do view the adoption of the anti-
secession law as something that is unfortunate and not helpful to encouraging peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We don't believe anyone should be taking unilateral steps or make unilateral changes that increase tensions."
Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to discuss the new law with Chinese officials when she stopped in China later this week.
China claims Taiwan is a renegade province, and it fears that letting the island out of its grasp could spark secession drives in other regions, such as Tibet, and weaken the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party.
Taiwan, an island of 23 million people with nearly 13 times greater per-capita income than the mainland, has governed itself for more than five decades and says it already is a sovereign country. A statement issued Monday by Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council called Beijing's contention that the two sides belong to "one China" a fiction.
The United States has sold Taiwan billions of dollars in armaments in recent decades and is obligated by Congress under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to help the island defend itself. Washington has urged both sides to resolve their differences peacefully.
-end of article-
History has shown that empires do not last forever. Could this situation over Taiwan signal the beginning of the end of the American empire?
cableguy said:
If that really be the case, then where were the Americans when the Japanese massacred the Chinese in Nanking? Why did it take Pearl to get America into Nazi Germany? We all know that America stands for war as along as it is beneficial to America. Why is America not doing anything about the Indonesian Army radomly killing Acehnese?
cableguy said:
Conquer? Taiwan belongs to PRC. They are only keeping what is theirs. America, by assisting ROC, is helping a renegade. Look at it this way ... what if one day, Hawaii wanted nothing to do with being a United State?
cableguy said:
Dont believe everything you read. Talk about naive.
cableguy said:
Sovereignty. Same was asked about Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau in 1999. Look at these countries today. They are much better off now then when they were under British and semi independent rule.
You forgot the search for WMDs.cableguy said:
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,411
- Reaction score
- 458
With the amount of Chinese Descendants living in the US, would they all have to be moved to the one spot?? I'm thinking if the US starts a War vs China, there's gonna be a hell of a lot of action going on, on their home turf.. Something to think about before going to war.. This is way different than the Iraq situation in that China is not an oppressed nation..
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 4,004
- Reaction score
- 255
2 things.
First of all, the whole point of any nation having an army, is so if need be they can use their army in defense or by show of force to benefit that nation.
Second of all, there will be no war betweeen the US and China.
First of all, the whole point of any nation having an army, is so if need be they can use their army in defense or by show of force to benefit that nation.
Second of all, there will be no war betweeen the US and China.
cableguy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2004
- Messages
- 595
- Reaction score
- 0
red horse, it seems the war of 1812 was declared after provocation... and that it wasnt actually lost, after all...
The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The war was declared as a result of long simmering disputes with Great Britian. The central dispute surrounded the impressment of American soldiers by the British. The British had previously attacked the USS Chesapeake and nearly caused a war two year earlier. In addition, disputes continued with Great Britain over the Northwest Territories and the border with Canada. Finally, the attempts of Great Britain to impose a blockade on France during the Napoleonic Wars was a constant source of conflict with the United States.
The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.
conman... great point about ww2... read your history a little more, and you will find the US was very isolationist at that point in history... a "leave well enough alone" or "it really isnt OUR problem" attitude... similar to what you are advocating the USA do now, if i am not mistaken... hmmmm...
you say the roc "belongs" to the prc... there are many who feel that the prc "belongs" to the roc... unless BOTH agree to keep their own territory, we have what is called an irreconcilable difference, which can only end in war...
you may call me naieve if you must, but what se asian nation aside from Australia has any quantity of military hardware??? i am at a tremendous loss to think of a single nation...
you say sovereignty is to be gained by the prc absorbing the roc... how is that even possible??? i dont know the details of macau, but hong kong was a contract deal with the Brits, which is like comparing apples and bricks...
the war against terrorism was not, as you like to believe, started by the US... the only way that can be said is if you believe the attacks on 9/11/2001 didnt actually happen, and that no planes were hijacked, the pentagon was never damaged, and the wtc towers still stand... President Bush, in his state of the union address in 2002 made it very clear that terrorists would be hunted down, and that nations that harbor and/or support terrorists are legitimate military targets... iraq fit the bill, as do a shrinking number of nations still... focus on wmds all you want, but that has little to do with the reasons for punting saddam... also, if you read my recently posted thread, it seems there was a wmd program after all...
zinista, the prc is very much an oppressed nation... "crimes against the state" is still a popular criminal charge, and when one is executed for same, that persons family recieves a bill for the cost of one bullet... unless, of course, that qualifies as a free people...
hopefully for the last time, if the US was at war for oil, it would hardly be at the barrel price it is at now... opec has created an artificially high market price, and the prc is consuming so much oil, there is ALSO a scarcity problem... oil companies profit more with a low wholesale price than a high one... basic economics there...
The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The war was declared as a result of long simmering disputes with Great Britian. The central dispute surrounded the impressment of American soldiers by the British. The British had previously attacked the USS Chesapeake and nearly caused a war two year earlier. In addition, disputes continued with Great Britain over the Northwest Territories and the border with Canada. Finally, the attempts of Great Britain to impose a blockade on France during the Napoleonic Wars was a constant source of conflict with the United States.
The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.
conman... great point about ww2... read your history a little more, and you will find the US was very isolationist at that point in history... a "leave well enough alone" or "it really isnt OUR problem" attitude... similar to what you are advocating the USA do now, if i am not mistaken... hmmmm...
you say the roc "belongs" to the prc... there are many who feel that the prc "belongs" to the roc... unless BOTH agree to keep their own territory, we have what is called an irreconcilable difference, which can only end in war...
you may call me naieve if you must, but what se asian nation aside from Australia has any quantity of military hardware??? i am at a tremendous loss to think of a single nation...
you say sovereignty is to be gained by the prc absorbing the roc... how is that even possible??? i dont know the details of macau, but hong kong was a contract deal with the Brits, which is like comparing apples and bricks...
the war against terrorism was not, as you like to believe, started by the US... the only way that can be said is if you believe the attacks on 9/11/2001 didnt actually happen, and that no planes were hijacked, the pentagon was never damaged, and the wtc towers still stand... President Bush, in his state of the union address in 2002 made it very clear that terrorists would be hunted down, and that nations that harbor and/or support terrorists are legitimate military targets... iraq fit the bill, as do a shrinking number of nations still... focus on wmds all you want, but that has little to do with the reasons for punting saddam... also, if you read my recently posted thread, it seems there was a wmd program after all...
zinista, the prc is very much an oppressed nation... "crimes against the state" is still a popular criminal charge, and when one is executed for same, that persons family recieves a bill for the cost of one bullet... unless, of course, that qualifies as a free people...
hopefully for the last time, if the US was at war for oil, it would hardly be at the barrel price it is at now... opec has created an artificially high market price, and the prc is consuming so much oil, there is ALSO a scarcity problem... oil companies profit more with a low wholesale price than a high one... basic economics there...
The Crusher
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 731
cableguy said:
The US was in a very interesting postion. Early Americans realized, through the principles of "Manifest Destiny", that we were "pre-ordained", so to speak, to be isolationist based on the geography of North America and the goe-political status of our neighbors to the North and South at the time. Also, Americans felt that they had a brand new world to conquer (let's save the Native American issue for later) and we didn't have the time or energy to be involved in international issues of what was a very Euro-centric world. However, we actually did participate in world events in not so direct ways. "Lend-Lease" is a primary example.
cableguy said:
Actually, thanks to the US, Taiwan is one of the most heavily armed "nations" in that theater.
The "Human Rights" issue is a moot point. China is very quick to point the finger right back at the US whenever we bring up China's record on human rights abuse. I believe, according to Amnesty International (and much of the rest of the world agrees) that the US is one of the largest abusers of human rights in the world.cableguy said:
Like I said in my last post, the Chinese government has been trying to create a hybrid soci-economic model. They're hoping that people will give-up some political freedoms for economic freedoms. This is really no different that the way it is in the US. The US has become an Oligarchy, a country ruled and governed by only the wealthy. If you think the US has a two-party system, you're on crack. Americans have about as much choice on who is elected and actually run this country as China. Sure, there's a lot of different names on the ballet, but they're all cut from the same cloth. The American people know this and show it every four years by staying home on election day. It's only going to get worse, especially after the last two elections. When the Presidency is decided by one state and they are wide-spread reports of election fraud and indirect voter intimidation in that key state, more and more people are going to stay home. I'm just as red, white and blue as you, Cableguy, but open your eyes as to where this country is heading.
The US is at war over oil, the control of it. But you're right about prc. They have quickly become one of the world's largest consumers of oil. I don't think, however, that the Taiwan issue is about oil.cableguy said:
cableguy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2004
- Messages
- 595
- Reaction score
- 0
true, the roc is well armed for a small nation, BUT, technology cant bridge the numerical gap completely between the roc and the prc... some soviet general or politician whose name escapes me once said "quantity is a quality of its own... there is NO way the roc could turn back an invasion by the chicoms by themselves...
the problem with US politics today is that no one but the zealots on both sides get involved in any kind of numerically signifigant way... i quit going to precinct caucuses because unless i can bring about eight people that care about something other than abortion, my time is wasted.. i have heard the same story coming from ppl who have attended democrat caucases as well... not necessarily abortion, but some other single issue that shouldnt (in my view) be the focus of any political campaign...
BOT
apparently, russia is going to get together with the prc for a military exercise... russia wanted to focus on anti-terrorism, but china decided it will be a rehearsal for an invasion of the roc... so far, russia has gone along, though they are in a bit of a bind on this one... they are going to piss of someone major no matter what outcome this originally benign situation winds up with...
the problem with US politics today is that no one but the zealots on both sides get involved in any kind of numerically signifigant way... i quit going to precinct caucuses because unless i can bring about eight people that care about something other than abortion, my time is wasted.. i have heard the same story coming from ppl who have attended democrat caucases as well... not necessarily abortion, but some other single issue that shouldnt (in my view) be the focus of any political campaign...
BOT
apparently, russia is going to get together with the prc for a military exercise... russia wanted to focus on anti-terrorism, but china decided it will be a rehearsal for an invasion of the roc... so far, russia has gone along, though they are in a bit of a bind on this one... they are going to piss of someone major no matter what outcome this originally benign situation winds up with...
The Crusher
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 731
Below is a copy of a recent news article. This doesn't have to do with Taiwan, but it's an example of China's effort to supplant the US as the world's Superpower, at least economically. I also heard a story a while back that claimed al-Qaida was funnelling money in support of China's currency in an effort to bring down the US by economic means. The story didn't say that China knew about this. This is all just the tip of the iceberg.
Bush administration warns China to overhaul its currency system
By JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press
5/18/2005
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration warned China on Tuesday that it could be cited as a currency manipulator and face economic sanctions unless it moves swiftly to overhaul its currency system.
The administration has been prodding China in earnest over the last two years to stop linking its currency, the yuan, to the U.S. dollar.
Manufacturers and other critics, including Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress, contend that China's currency system puts U.S. companies at a big competitive disadvantage and has contributed to the loss of U.S. factory jobs.
In China, central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said no one should expect quick action. "Our measures will only come out after we have done a good feasibility study," he said.
The department issued the warning as part of its twice-a-year report to Congress. It stopped short of finding that China - or any other major trading partner of the United States - was engaging in unfair currency practices.
Separately, President Bush said Tuesday that China was not living up to the market-opening promises it made to join the World Trade Organization in late 2001. He urged the country to stop piracy of U.S. intellectual property and lift barriers that keep American goods and services out.
At a ceremonial White House swearing-in for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman - who was officially sworn in last month - Bush pointedly said it was in China's interest to abide by WTO rules.
The administration said China could be branded a manipulator of currency if the country doesn't switch soon to a flexible exchange system - something advocated not only by the United States but also by other economic powers.
A 1988 law requires the Treasury Department to analyze countries' exchange rate policies and determine whether manipulation to gain unfair trade advantages is occurring. The law has economic sanctions that can be imposed on countries found in violation.
"If current trends continue without substantial alteration, China's policies will likely meet the statute's technical requirements for designation," the department's report said.
American manufacturers say China's system has undervalued the yuan by as much as 40 percent. The weaker yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and American products more expensive in China.
The report called China's currency policies "highly distortionary" - posing a risk to, among other things, China's trading partners and global economic growth.
The administration said it would monitor China's progress on moving toward a flexible exchange system "very closely over the next six months" in advance of the Treasury's next currency report that will be sent to Congress later this year.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, speaking to reporters, wouldn't be pinned down on the timing of a possible designation of China should the country not move ahead as the United States wants it to. He also wouldn't detail how high he would like to see China's currency to rise.
Snow did say, "It should be a real step - it should be something the world can see and know that China means business."
Bush administration warns China to overhaul its currency system
By JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press
5/18/2005
The administration has been prodding China in earnest over the last two years to stop linking its currency, the yuan, to the U.S. dollar.
Manufacturers and other critics, including Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress, contend that China's currency system puts U.S. companies at a big competitive disadvantage and has contributed to the loss of U.S. factory jobs.
In China, central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said no one should expect quick action. "Our measures will only come out after we have done a good feasibility study," he said.
The department issued the warning as part of its twice-a-year report to Congress. It stopped short of finding that China - or any other major trading partner of the United States - was engaging in unfair currency practices.
Separately, President Bush said Tuesday that China was not living up to the market-opening promises it made to join the World Trade Organization in late 2001. He urged the country to stop piracy of U.S. intellectual property and lift barriers that keep American goods and services out.
At a ceremonial White House swearing-in for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman - who was officially sworn in last month - Bush pointedly said it was in China's interest to abide by WTO rules.
The administration said China could be branded a manipulator of currency if the country doesn't switch soon to a flexible exchange system - something advocated not only by the United States but also by other economic powers.
A 1988 law requires the Treasury Department to analyze countries' exchange rate policies and determine whether manipulation to gain unfair trade advantages is occurring. The law has economic sanctions that can be imposed on countries found in violation.
"If current trends continue without substantial alteration, China's policies will likely meet the statute's technical requirements for designation," the department's report said.
American manufacturers say China's system has undervalued the yuan by as much as 40 percent. The weaker yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and American products more expensive in China.
The report called China's currency policies "highly distortionary" - posing a risk to, among other things, China's trading partners and global economic growth.
The administration said it would monitor China's progress on moving toward a flexible exchange system "very closely over the next six months" in advance of the Treasury's next currency report that will be sent to Congress later this year.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, speaking to reporters, wouldn't be pinned down on the timing of a possible designation of China should the country not move ahead as the United States wants it to. He also wouldn't detail how high he would like to see China's currency to rise.
Snow did say, "It should be a real step - it should be something the world can see and know that China means business."
