布溫會後的台美中分析
| 回應本題 | 自選底色↑ | 返 回 |
| 蘭陽醒獅團 於 2003/12/11 10:37 | |
| 布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
王景弘先生這一篇文章非常清楚地描述 布溫會後，台美中的得與失， 現在，我就等著美國學術界與媒體界在沉澱白宮的資訊後， --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 【華府評論】沒有贏家的美國政策新包裝◎王景弘。 美國總統布希與中國國務院總理溫家寶會談之後，宣示華府對台海政策的新包裝：「美國反對中國或台灣片面決定改變現狀。」布希政府官員說，政策新包裝的目的在使其原來政策所隱含的意義明確化，以保障台海和平。 但布希被一些專看中國臉色辦事的「中國通」誤導，新的包裝在道義上難以自圓其說，徒然使布希政府蒙上虛言民主，卻受中國指使而壓制台灣民主的惡名。 美民主大旗被寫上虛偽 溫家寶雖一再感謝美國的立場，但中國並沒有全贏。美國反對片面決定改變現狀，同樣適用於約制中國，而且美國不只反對中國使用武力，也反對中國使用脅迫手段要改變現狀。中國過去幾年敲鑼打鼓的「促統」，現在也只有變成靠美國替它「防獨」。 對台灣而言，雖然台灣自認已經是主權獨立國家，並沒有「宣布獨立」的必要，台灣要求的是確保現狀，進行民主改革，但依美國政策新包裝，「現狀」可以確保，只是涉及美國認為是改變現狀的議題，將無法進行公投，那是民主進程的一次挫折。 布希政府對台海政策的重新包裝，並沒有動到基本的「一個中國」，「三項公報」，「台灣關係法」，「不支持台獨」，「和平解決分歧」這些基本架構，只是對這些架構在新環境下，再作具體表述。但這種新包裝顯然並不比原來的包裝高明，卻徒然使美國高舉的民主大旗，被劃上「虛偽」兩個字。 從一九七九年美國與中國建交以來，美國站在道德、民主和顧及美國利益的立場，堅持台海分歧應以和平方式解決，美國對解決結果不作特定主張。「和平解決」本來就有雙方同意才行的意思，只有使用武力才會有片面解決的問題。這種包裝基本上是在防範中國以武力、脅迫完成對台灣的併吞。 柯林頓政府第一次改包裝，搞出一個所謂「不獨、不武」的配套，要求台灣不要宣佈「獨立」，及要求中國不能用武力解決雙方分歧。這個配套對台灣民主發展已經設限。他在一九九八年訪問中國時，在中國壓力下，再次改包裝，公開聲明美國的「三不」政策：不支持台獨，不支持一中一台或兩個中國，不支持台灣加入以國家為會員之國際組織。 未放棄防統轉維持現狀 布希政府對台海問題第一次包裝，實際上是對柯林頓政府「三不」的解妝，他不再提「三不」，而只提「不支持台獨」，但仍堅持「和平解決」，並聲言美國「將盡全力協助台灣自衛。」 台海紛歧和平解決，及盡全力協助台灣自衛，這些內涵重點明顯是在「防統」，不容台灣被中國強行併吞。現在新的包裝，並沒有放棄「防統」，但重點轉到「維持現狀」，防止現狀被「片面決定改變」，而且把防台灣片面改變現狀列為當務之急。 「美國反對中國或台灣片面決定改變現狀」的內涵，實際上還是「不獨、不武」，也許還可以說加上「不統」，也就是眼前的僵局。如果美國的「反對」能成效，則台灣將犧牲民主政治最基本的人民自決權力，因為那涉及片面改變現狀。 台灣在民主權力上的犧牲，換來拒絕被中國併吞的權力。台灣不願被「統」，中國要強行併吞，便犯上美國「反對片面決定改變現狀」的天條。 中國武攻美稱一定介入 溫家寶訪美前放的話，要求美國「表明反對使用公投或制憲，或所有台灣當局領導人所用以尋求分裂目的之伎倆」。美國政策的重新包裝，顯然合乎他的要求。白宮發言人麥克里蘭表明美國反對台灣進行會改變台灣「現狀」的公投和憲政改革。 但在背景簡報中，白宮官員也表明美國並不反對不涉及改變台灣現狀的公投與憲法改革。 美國也不是讓溫家寶白吃，在麥克里蘭正式簡報及國安會官員背景簡報中，美方一再強調不能片面改變現狀的原則對「中國和台灣都適用」，而且，布希明確告訴溫家寶，如果中國企圖以使用武力或脅迫，要改變台灣現狀，美國「一定會介入」。 雖然台灣關係法已經用了不容中國以「脅迫」手段危害台灣人民安全及社會、經濟制度，但這次由布希當面警告溫家寶，而溫家寶居然也沒有還以「台灣問題是中國內政問題，如何解決不容外人干涉」的話，反而還一再對美國的新包裝稱謝，不知道他把話聽懂了沒有。 在中國「促統」策略當令時，北京還把台灣長期拒統，視為「台獨」，並揚言長期拒統將構成中國使用武力的條件。但美國重新包裝的政策，只有使現狀更不易被中國片面強制改變，其可能現象是「不統、不獨、不武」。溫家寶被問到中國對「現狀」如何定義時，根本就避過不答，但「現狀」絕對不是「統」，這是可以確定的。 台灣既然把現狀視為已經獨立自主的主權國家，並沒有宣布獨立的問題，只有深化民主改革的問題。陳水扁總統承諾改革不會涉及「統獨」，不會違反「四不一沒有」的承諾，至少在說法上與美國包裝的政策並不抵觸。白宮官員也拿過去九年民調，所謂台灣大多數受測者均主張「維持現狀」為由，來支持其「不片面決定改變現狀」的合理性。在布希新包裝下，原來被暗中壓制的台灣人民自決權，現在被公開的壓制，這不能說是新受的損害，而是台灣在不正常國家現狀下，繼續受到損害。 蒙上污點布希易受抨擊 但從白宮兩場簡報的情緒來看，受害最大的是布希政府。美國記者逼著要白宮發言人和國家安全會議幕僚把話說清楚：為什麼布希大力推銷民主，卻要限制台灣人民的民主發展？ 白宮官員全力表態，聲言美國最重要目標是「維護和平」，絕對不是放棄支持台灣的民主，或自由的開展。但是，在中國指使下約制台灣民主改革，已使布希政府鼓吹民主工作蒙上污點，他將易受共和黨保守派的抨擊。 .....2003-12-11【台灣日報】 | |
NO:1506_1
| 蘭陽醒獅團 於 2003/12/11 10:44 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
之前中南海的鷹派還想為所謂的“統一”定下時間表。 他們說：不統就是獨。 現在，，米國強調美國反對中國片面決定改變現狀。 就這一點解釋，台灣在民主自由之路是可以自行調整 | |
NO:1506_2
| 蘭陽醒獅團 於 2003/12/11 10:54 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
台聯第一時間去AIT抗議，取得 表達台灣人立場的最佳時機。 更取得AIT官員的回應，表示米國不反對台灣公投。 這一句話非常重要。 相對之下，外界質疑民進黨立委的創造力與行動力已經不如以往， | |
NO:1506_3
| 海兒 於 2003/12/11 11:08 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
＞＞溫家寶被問到中國對「現狀」如何定義時，根本就避過不答，但「現狀」絕對不是「統」，這是可 ＞＞以確定的。 呵呵．．．．溫家寶當然不敢回答！ 因為連美國這一次都說台灣不是中國叛亂的一省了，那「現狀」在消極的意義來說當然是：「台灣不屬於中國！」，在積極的意義而言則是：「台灣是一個主權國家！」 ＞＞相對之下，外界質疑民進黨立委的創造力與行動力已經不如以往， 這涉及到角色定位的問題！ 因為民進黨是執政黨，要在對外的姿態上表現沉穩，讓國內人民與外國都感到可靠。 反之，身為在野的台聯則不妨激進，以爭取曝光的機會，並成為凝聚台灣改革意識的核心，好增加台聯在未來成為執政黨的政治資本！ 身為在野黨如果不激進的化，很快就會被人民所淘汰！ 看看以前的新黨的下場就可以知道。 | |
NO:1506_4
| light 於 2003/12/11 11:10 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
其實中國早已放棄「促統」，我說過我在中國時曾旁聽過一些學術研討，會議上中國學者已經訂出「統一交給時間，獨立交給美國」的戰略，這應是去年年初的事了。這些學者是共黨的幕僚，意見有相當程度準確性。 我常呼籲，要多瞭解我們的敵人，他們日漸有信心，外交、戰略手腕越來越靈活，真的要小心。 中國對統一的看法是「由時間來解決」，最近一年內一定可以更清楚看到這趨勢，這表示他們對國際局勢的判斷，以及步步為營的戰略。 至於獨立交給美國，現在已經看得粉清楚了。 我個人從不怨恨美國，也不抱美國大腿，我跟老美做生意的經驗，就是利益為先才有道義。因此當我想要老美替我做一件事時候，我從不期望只以道德訴求喚醒他的良知，而是要考慮如何創造利益分享，讓老美甘願為我做事，這時候道義也才派得上用場。 老美國務院立場一向是現實色彩，國會立場是理想色彩，我一再強調台灣爭取國會的道義支持，若沒有利益均分終將會落空，被人使喚，甚至被出賣！ 台灣應積極爭取國務院的支持，如何爭取？必須讓國務院官員警惕到「你另有靠山，另有出路，而且也活得粉愉快」但又「對美國表示支持」，下過三國棋嗎？台灣是小國，所以更要遊走兩大國之間，不讓任何一大國吃定台灣。 創造關鍵少數的國際空間，才是台灣獨立生存於地球上的不二王道。 要讓台灣從老美的附從，一躍而為關鍵少數，就必須開拓其餘的大國關係：歐盟集團、伊斯蘭世界，以及最微妙的......中國。 就像當年拿到老法的印象戰機，老美的f-16就來了一樣。 要開拓這些大國關係，必須有一套國際整體戰略作為指導原則，分層次分國家來配套，何時可以堅持，何時要翻臉，何時要嘻嘻笑，何時要付錢，何時要談判，都在整體戰略思維下進行。 以色列一個小國，卻可以打敗環伺的阿拉伯國家，操縱世界最強大的美國政府，是什麼原因？ 台灣人不比猶太人差，台商更是打敗許多猶太商人。 我們欠缺的只是一套國際戰略作為指導原則。
| |
NO:1506_5
| 海兒 於 2003/12/11 11:16 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
＞＞以色列一個小國，卻可以打敗環伺的阿拉伯國家，操縱世界最強大的美國政府，是什麼原因？ 說到這一點，讓我不由得想起在上個月曾有一位在美國詹森總統時代擔任國防部高級官員的退休將領，他跳出來指責當時美國明明知道以色列曾經攻擊美國驅逐艦、造成美國官兵死傷，但詹森政府卻把事情壓下來，繼續支持以色列！ 這個往事，或許可以作為台灣將來在規劃台海防衛戰爭時的一個參考！ | |
NO:1506_6
| light 於 2003/12/11 11:33 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
嗯，海兒，我並不知這件事，不過若如你所言，想想看，老美為何對一個「區區以色列」這樣「屈服」呢？ 台灣是否要學習以色列，不要說今天公投還要看老美臉色，而是阿扁話一說，美國馬上來捍衛阿扁，真的不可能嗎？那猶太人怎麼做到的？ 怎麼扭轉這種態勢呢？ 這中間有太多國際觀要去研究，一百個博士都不嫌少！ 我只是個商人，不是學者，但憑著多年做生意的經驗，我知道這條路是台灣作為「鐵拳」而非「肉腳」的唯一一條路。 希望有更多網友關注這方面訊息。 | |
NO:1506_7
| 海兒 於 2003/12/11 11:55 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
那則新聞是上個月台灣公視的報導，一般人不太會留意到！ 我想，當時以色列明知道是美國的驅逐艦還故意對它進行攻擊的主因，大概是以色列故意要拖美國下水、介入中東戰爭！ 許多人一直認為美國在台海戰爭時會袖手旁觀，姑且不說這樣的說法是不是單純拿敵人來恐嚇自己人，但更重要的一點是：假使這樣的情況發生時，台灣要怎麼辦？ 以我的看法，台灣有必要的話就是要把美國拖下水，讓他非介入不可！ 從以色列的例子讓我受到相當大的啟發：有必要的話台灣可以在戰時攻擊美國或日、韓的非軍事船隻，然後學以色列當年一般把事情推給敵人身上！ 這就好像在二次世界大戰時，德國U艇攻擊美國民用船隻不光是德國的錯，而是美國當時的一些船隻的確有違反戰時中立國政策，偷偷的運物資給英國，所以德國U艇才予以擊沉！ 但這樣一來，就讓美國的主戰派有口實可以介入戰爭，並將德國抹黑為枉顧道義與國際法的劊子手、激起美國人民的憤怒而對德宣戰！ 因此，如果台海不幸發生戰爭時而美國果真又袖手旁觀的話，那台灣可以利用僅有的幾艘潛艦攻擊美、日、韓通過台灣海峽的民用船隻，然後把事情推到中國身上－－反正中國一天搞反美、反日，並誇口說不惜為了統一台灣而對任何國家開戰！ 那麼，既然如此的話咱們就成全中國，把美、日、韓全都抓來和中國打一打，讓中國過足戰爭的癮！ 就算是到最後美、日、韓和中國沒有打起來，但至少也會為了保護他們自身民用船隻的安全而派軍艦護航，如此一來台海戰爭的局勢就變得複雜起來，而讓中國不得不收手！ | |
NO:1506_8
| Pigeon 於 2003/12/11 12:47 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Hawks: Why do you guys wish to separate from China? Is it not fine to keep the status quo? | |
NO:1506_9
| 港燦 於 2003/12/11 13:07 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
No wonder pigeons are roasted for the pleasure of our tongues. Status quo? The indefinite prolonging of the status quo constitutes a condition for war in itself. Please find and read Peoples Daily or China Daily before making such a stupid question. Maybe you arent a pigeon at all - an ostrich instead, probably. | |
NO:1506_10
| Pigeon 於 2003/12/11 17:27 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Sew the seeds of peaceful reunification now, and harvest in autumn. I am not for a split China, or a status quo. But due to historical reasons that end us up in this current situation, we must tolerate it for a little while. I have a dream, not only of a united China, but for a united China thats free, civilised, affluent, democratic, non-corrupt, has the rule of law, and an accountable government. I do not like to see a Beijing swallow Taipei by force, and I do not like to see Taipei become another capital of another state. We must have patience and wisdom to get the desirable result. I agree with you that the split is is potentially stabilising factor, but if this is an excuse for the Mainland PLA hawks or Taiwan separationists to go to their respective agenda, then once again a lot of Chinese blood will be shed in vain, with hatred more deeply rooted. If you do not let the moderates have their way, the radicals will take over. There cannot be an unilateral time-schedule for re-unification. This is not legitimate at all, esp. if a one-man-one-vote govt. is to be overthrown by a one-party regime. The universal suffrage is also not a panacea for all issues. There are certain rules that you opt to observe. Taiwan provinces future does not depend on Taiwan inhabitants alone, it concerns all Chinese people. If you ask when? My answer is: when 周公吐脯，天下歸心 , then its time to re-unite. | |
NO:1506_11
| Middle Man 於 2003/12/11 17:31 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Agree .... | |
NO:1506_12
| 偉大的中國豬 於 2003/12/11 18:08 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
想要臺灣變成以色列？請先讓台裔美國人控制美國的金融界，媒體界，高等學術界，法律界；再培養幾個台籍美國最高法院大法官，七八個台裔美國參議員，百來個台裔美國國務院智囊，及台裔美國國防部次長，次次長，次次次長，次次次次長。最重要的是這些台裔美國人不能忘記他們真正的祖國是美麗的福爾摩沙。嘿嘿！難度就像做鹽水蜂砲一樣，不會很高！我估計臺灣花個兩三百年就可以達成！ | |
NO:1506_13
| 港燦 於 2003/12/11 18:26 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Pigeon: I must have a disclosure of interest first: I am a Hong Kong citizen living in Hong Kong throughout my life, not Taiwanese. As long as your ultimate objective is re-unification based on your own patriotism as a Chinese, then there is actually no need to have any discussion; it is a sort of sentiment which few if not none Taiwanese share. Of course you can find a lot of ROC citizens calling themselves Chinese all the time - but remember, such a group consists of many who are not saying so out of a genuine heart, but for the convenience of doing business (the business people trying to make money in the PRC) or other ulterior motives (say, Soong-A or Lien). Moreover, the toleration of the so-called STATUS QUO by Taiwanese is actually an in-your-face for the big dream of 《One China》: no matter they deem themselves Chinese or not there is still a consensus among the population that this very island of Taiwan, whether in the name ROC, Taiwan, or whatsoever, is a sovereign state, though a DE FACTO one, at present. Like it or not, even if all Taiwanese are now calling themselves Chinese there is NO WAY that reunification will become automatic. The bottom line is, nation, as an anthropological notion, is one thing; as a legal or real-world politics entity, it is another. Or in other words, EVEN IF these very people living in Taiwan are 100% zoologically Han Chinese it is not a must for them to live in ONE single nation state with all other Han Chinese. If all ethnic-Chinese contend to drag Taiwan back into the China empire, it can be done, of course - just that it already qualifies an immoral act of coercion. The choice of not joining the China empire is an exercise of free will, not a crime forbidden by any law. If this is a criminal act, then use force to enforce your law over them - and see what happens. There is no such thing as grey area in-between; as long as these people do not want to join your dream empire, you have to respect them, and acknowledge their existence as another political entity. If not, try to crush them if you like - and see what happens. 周公吐脯, 天下歸心......I do not see a new imperialist nation of Great China anything positive. Can you guarantee a China empire calling the shots necessarily better than the current world meddled by the 「evil US empire」? I doubt. As a reply, I think the following question can be asked: Why not giving up the hope of a big China empire? | |
NO:1506_14
| 蘭陽醒獅團 於 2003/12/11 20:12 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
現在要觀察的是：台灣人要繼續舉辦公投。 美國要怎樣回應？ 如果米國持續增加壓力給台灣，那麼既站不住腳，又會 不過，在檯面下的反彈，我們就不得而知了。 台灣必須持續溝通，溝通才是良藥。 至於中國，可以著力的地方不多，如果施壓與恐嚇愈多， 看來目前戰場的確是在華府 | |
NO:1506_15
| 蘭陽醒獅團 於 2003/12/11 20:34 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
台灣“維持現狀”高比例的民調，被白宮拿來當成是 反對台灣改變現狀的理由之一。 這顯然是米國的不當解釋。 公投是人民的天生權利，不因為任何原因而可以停止， 況且台灣的維持現狀是目前狀態，而人民有權公投自己未來要走的狀態， 台灣的現狀，中國的看法，米國的看法，台灣人的看法，在台中國人的看法都不一樣， 什麼是台灣現狀？多方都要講清楚說明白才可以有焦點。目前就是米國與在台中國人的 | |
NO:1506_16
| 小糠榔 於 2003/12/11 21:01 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Pigeon: 個人覺得您的思想很古老的感覺。 | |
NO:1506_17
| 海兒 於 2003/12/12 10:51 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
阿扁既然是由台灣人民所選出來的，那麼，他對於何謂台灣「現狀」的詮釋當然最有代表性！ 美國對於何謂「現狀」有其國家利益考量，這一點我們可以理解，而美國的說法刻意保留相當大的空間給台灣自己去詮釋，也沒有影響到台灣展現全民意志。 至於國、親兩黨對於「現狀」的詮釋大概是最投機、最脫離現實、最支離破碎，也最沒有出息了！ 一下子說：「一個中國就是中華民國」，擺明要將中共政府繼續視為叛亂團體、同時不承認蒙古共和國的主權；一下子卻又高喊：「回到九二共識」不去堅持「一個中國就是中華民國」，一下子又提「邦聯論」把台灣與中國看成兩個國家，一下子又說：「不要挑釁中共」，自我矮化當縮頭烏龜！ 台灣如果讓這種連台灣未來前途都說不清楚的兩個人當正副元首，不亂成一團才怪！ | |
NO:1506_18
| Pigeon 於 2003/12/12 11:33 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Thanks for your analysis. In fact, I find more points that were in common than otherwise. ROC, Taiwan, is a sovereign state, though a DE FACTO one, at present. Of course! I do not think this ROC anything inferior to, subordinate to PRC, as a political power, a sovereign state. In terms of legitimacy to rule, PRC cannot match ROC. There is NO WAY that reunification will become automatic. Agreed. The issue is whether this is an objective worthy to pursue. The bottom line is, nation, as an anthropological notion, is one thing; as a legal or real-world politics entity, it is another. Or in other words, EVEN IF these very people living in Taiwan are 100% zoologically Han Chinese it is not a must for them to live in ONE single nation state with all other Han Chinese. Agreed. I know the nation-state concept. Like Mom and her foetus/baby, before or after the umbilical cord is cut, are TWO individuals. They have separate identities and their own freewill and should be well respected. I agree that the issue is often heavily clouded with sentiments. But as this sentiment is so strong and prevalent it deserves to be tackled seriously. The problem now is that there are incessant adversarial exchanges between PRC and ROC and there are persistent risks of war. Both sides prepared expensive weapons, both sides fought each other on the diplomatic arena, Taiwan spends US$ to win the recognition of some never-heard-of countries, PRC buys them back, and then when Taiwan spends more these countries switches again. This costs a lot for nothing. Peaceful unification is the best. And I think none of the side should use force to this end. Re-unite happily, otherwise just keep the distance apart. Good sex or rape depends on whether there is consent. Rape is a crime. But provided ROC is a de facto sovereign state, why one should insist on a de jure separation to dump the Chinese identity. This is a very blatant provocation to the Mainland. For historical reasons, this separation is unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of the Chinese people and would probably result in a war started by frustration, conducted with attrition, and ended in massive destruction of life and property without glory. Of course there is grey area, the safety area. PRC and ROC are like water and oil, they cannot merge, but should not harm the other. It is stupid and crazy to use violence to shake and stir and fling and rock to make them merge, for after the disturbance they still fall apart with messy spillover. Wait, let time and wisdom do their jobs, one day a magic emulsifying agent will be invented and the two will merge voluntarily. There is no need to rush. Now just enjoy some WIN-WIN cultural/economic/academic exchanges. | |
NO:1506_19
| chcyang 於 2003/12/12 11:33 | |
| 補充樓上『海兒』閣下的文章 | |
補充樓上『海兒』閣下的文章：印象中，美國海軍的一艘情報蒐集艦『自由號』在六日戰爭時，在公海上被以色列空軍戰機來回掃射好幾次，死了一票美國水兵，事後當然以色列政府趕快向老美道歉，所以這事情就混過去了。詳細情形，因為那本書放在台灣，所以只有靠大家補充了。 這種鳥事發生之後，美國當年有人說是因為『自由號』也在收集以色列空軍的電子訊號，所以以色列軍方故意藉『誤擊』把那艘船趕走。不過，敝人認為這種『陰謀論』，就跟美國空軍誤擊中國駐南斯拉夫大使館之鳥事一般，是『事後諸葛』。 敝人真心相信，打仗的是人，所以不管武器多精良，還是會有白癡到極點的『鳥事』發生！ 另外，美國人在台海問題上，當然是『省事事省』！他們當然無法瞭解，台灣總統為何要沒事找事做？今天美國人拿美國護照，全世界四處走，到處歡歡喜喜。他們當然不能瞭解台灣人每天就得在統媒的疲勞轟炸之下，一天到晚聽Chi-Na Ren叫囂，憋都憋死了！台灣人出國過境外國機場，被外國安全人員當賊看。參加個國際會議，還得偷偷摸摸，溜進會場。一不小心被Chi-Na Ren看到了，還得像灰姑娘一樣，蹲回廚房的角落裏去擦地板！走遍歐洲、亞洲、北美洲，找不到一個能代表台灣的使領館，台灣人民與外國政府打交道，通通都得玩『借殼上市』的無恥遊戲！老子替台灣同學會打打雜，『地下』『台灣駐洛杉磯總領事館』發了張草紙給我，上面寫的是『某某經濟文化辦事處』，拿給老外看，如果我號稱這是國家發出來的，老美搞不好還以為我是大頭病，說謊成習慣：『上面根本沒有Consulate General的字樣嘛！』拜託！台灣對外能掛Embassy or Conslate General的館處雙手雙腳就可以數完了！ 老美吃的是燈草灰，放的是輕巧屁：『你們台灣人的國家安全有困難時，就不要太在乎民主嘛？！沒事幹嘛惹Chi-Na Ren生氣？！』如果你美國人民被Chi-Na Ren串通國際社會這樣當猴子耍弄了二三十年，還有這等好涵養，我才會說你們美國人能屈能伸，忍辱負重！ 台灣人這二十幾年來，如果把『民主』抽離，就是一群沒有尊嚴的草包暴發戶罷了！台灣人民能夠行使百分之百的民主，才能勉勉強強的大聲說話，如果老美政府要台灣人連這一點點的尊嚴都得拿出來抵押，借一句美國粗話:Piss off!! Why do you not go fuck yourself!? 實在不好意思。一股惡氣憋的太久了，不吐不快！ | |
NO:1506_20
| 海兒 於 2003/12/12 11:58 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
多謝chcyang的補充！ | |
NO:1506_21
| 港燦 於 2003/12/12 12:03 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
chcyang兄: 老美吃的是燈草灰，放的是輕巧屁 這句說得極好......看見別人還沒死, 便以為人家日子過的好,吃香喝辣, 不知別人打落牙齒和血吞, 當了崩牙X 還要擠出笑臉. 自家有事不想別人煩著可以理解, 但不等如可以諒解: 你老美有麻煩, 台灣一樣有. 怎麼你有權解決自己問題, 台灣卻不行? 不通之至. | |
NO:1506_22
| bystand 於 2003/12/12 15:20 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
↑↑↑ If Taiwanese can solve there problem, why need to bother American. Frankly, I havent see why US need to support Taiwan as you expect. Did Tainwan do something to US and let them realize that Taiwan is their valuable, indispensible ally? I dont think so. If you perceive it as a business, what can US gain by supporting Taiwan? There are two contrasts to Taiwan in Asia, Japan and Korea. They both contribute to Americans Iraq compaign. What did Taiwan do? Why do you guy alway ask so much but give so little! | |
NO:1506_23
| 港燦 於 2003/12/12 16:35 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Bystander, You may need some surgery on your fingers - to ensure they point at the right party in the future. This plebiscite thing is an act of self-help on the part of Taiwan, and remember: the Taiwanese government made not a word seeking any support from the US on the issue. If the US does not like it, fine - shut up then as it is not required to say a word at all. If somebody seeks help from you, you can reject the request, of course; but if that party is helping himself out and you pop up and whack on his head, it is your fault, not that party. Find a doctor and check your finger, dolt. | |
NO:1506_24
| 港燦 於 2003/12/12 16:58 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Some additions... To secure help from the US, what do you think Taiwan should do, huh? Sending out troops around the world as an unrecognized sovereign state? Bailing out the US from its trillion-sized budget deficit? Or what? Tell me. It is the current state of the island preventing it from doing more to the world, not that it wants to do nothing. Your comparison using S. Korea and Japan are just naive, if not idiotic. Or if you just do not think Taiwan a worthwhile strategic hold to keep in face of the upcoming PRC which has an APPEARINGLY large consumer market and unlimited source of cheap labour, blahblahblah, it is fine - in this case I really have no grounds to argue with you. The US is perfectly fine to give up on this island and let things take their course in this case - as long as it can ensure things will turn out in favour of it. I can claim that I am more pro-US than at least 95% of REAL US subjects; yet being pro-US is one thing, weighing in on the merits of an action is another. The core of the problem is the US diplomatic system which has been drowned with the disciples of the so-called God of Diplomacy H. Kissinger, who injected the new meaning APPEASING PRC into the political notion of REALISM. To be frank, I am AT LEAST AS sickened to see the US, the best available while imperfect world policeman so far, voluntarily and unconsciously ceding ground to this growing 800-tonne gorilla of PRC, as seeing the island of Taiwan and its people being chewed up by that very gorilla. | |
NO:1506_25
| bystand 於 2003/12/13 00:02 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
Come on, plz have a look of Tainwans national stratedy, do you really think it doesnt depend on US? If not, why do the Taiwanese care so much about what Bush said? Ignore it and do whateve you like. Thats easy, right? My point is any relationship is given AND taken. Nobody ask you to bail out US from trillions deficit. But did tainwan contibute a penny to Iraq reconstruction? Did they try to do that? For example, tell American they want to do something to be helpful? US foreign policy have much more idealistic elements than other major powers in this world, if I cant say all the other nations. Is Taiwans foreign policy not realistic? If yes, how can you blame US to be some kind of realistic. According to Taiwans behavior, and facing the the increasing power of PRC, Taiwan is only a bargain card to US. What US can do is selling it at a good price. As I said before, Taiwan did nothing to increase its value in US national stratedy. Do you feel pity for Taiwan? You should. Frankly speaking, so do I. But they deserve it. God can only save those who save themslves. US ia not God. | |
NO:1506_26
| TV330 於 2003/12/13 00:37 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
bystand 請用繁體中文發言. | |
NO:1506_27
| bystand 於 2003/12/13 00:42 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
↑↑↑ Sorry, I have problem to input traditional chinese in my PC. From now on, I will shut up. Thanks for your patiences. | |
NO:1506_28
| 港燦 於 2003/12/13 01:22 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
It DOES depend on the US - I do not disagree with that. The point is, firstly, the US does not have any need to make a fuss on it. Secondly, you can call the response of many Taiwanese (in particular the blue camp) stupid in making the fuss larger by screaming and scowling around in face of the action from the US. Yet you have to notice the much firmer position of the DPP government - it is holding out, still. Yet after a long period of dependence of the US isnt it a better idea for the Taiwan government to take a more active role instead of relying on this US oxygen pump till the very end? As you say, the Taiwan government might have been relying on the US too heavily and too long and making a move before its fate is 「certified」should be at least appreciated, if not encouraged. Judging from yourb stance, I would say that while your points CAN BE valid the validity depends on the question WHOS TAKING THE HELM AND WHAT CALLS ARE MADE on the side of the Taiwan government. In calling the foreign policy of the island not realistic or whatsoever, you have to answer yourself this very first question: are there any changes in the policies pursued in accordance with government changes? If yes, you have to decide which government pursued unrealistic policies, and which not. It is apparent that the former KMT government had scored sub-zero points on the issue, with the Chiang & Co cornering itself into one corner after another, only until the later Li Teng-hui years and the current DPP government striving hard to turn things around. At a time when it is getting a better understanding of its grave situation and getting to act together to stem the tide, I suppose it should be given at least a fair chance to try - and it is just as simple as doing nothing to hinder it. When you say let these people kick the bucket at this very moment, I would say that you might have pointed your fingers at the wrong party (the ones who try to fix it, instead of those who created it) at the wrong time (when things are to be done, instead of letting things further falter). With regard to your charge that Taiwan has been less than helpful, please remember this: As for the question of realist or not, I would put it this way: the failure to identify a risk in itself, and letting it loose without making any attempts to constrain this risk after its surfacing, are enough to disqualify a party from claiming itself as realist. Past Taiwan governments have indeed failed to do so, undoubtedly. Yet not so for the final Li government and the current DPP one. Then how about the US? Nixon and Kissinger let loose the PRC gorilla, fine - then one regime after another failed to acknowledge the potential threat of a looming nationalistic China and little have been done to restrain the growth of such a danger. The PRC has been given a blank cheque to what it likes so far, even going as far as killing thousands in front of international TV) or making inroads to the US government (remember Cox Report?) At a time this party showing better awareness of the danger it faces but the other is not (and even return to appeasement instead, after a short period of awareness of danger), I suppose it is not that easy to say who is realist and who is not. As at this second, perhaps I can say I have got your underlying message, though - as long as Taiwan, in particular its subjects, cannot comprehend the clear and present danger of quiet evaporation and continue with ostrich policies, doing nothing to save themselves (sticking to the China fantasies made by the KMT-PFP gang). This may be a wrong guess, notwithstanding - I aint sure. Anyway, as a Hong Kong citizen who has seen the city falling into the hands of the PRC and now facing certain death, I prefer being supportive to those who act to resist this very gorilla - even those who act a bit late. Late is at least better than never. | |
NO:1506_29
| 港燦 於 2003/12/13 01:32 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
版主: 在下也犯了規, 不過還望恕罪 - 下不為例. 抱歉抱歉. 改正: →as long as Taiwan, in particular its subjects, cannot comprehend the clear and present danger of quiet evaporation and continue with ostrich policies, doing nothing to save themselves (sticking to the China fantasies made by the KMT-PFP gang), they deserve being swallowed up by the PRC gorilla; if not, it deserves a chance to save itself. | |
NO:1506_30
| bystand 於 2003/12/13 02:21 | |
| Re:布溫會後的台美中分析 | |
To 版主: Can I reply in English? | |
回論壇
以下表格僅供管理人員整理資料輸入之用
