所以狗子可能有美國人和中共撐腰

[西雅圖夜未眠]

響應 開心愛~~~~~~~~~~
理緒出美國對台灣的邏輯與企圖(或許)~~~
若中華民國=中華人民共和國=主權在中華民國，則美國控有或擁有"中華民國"=整個大陸+台澎金馬!!
若台灣是美國軍事佔領基地=二次世戰後中華民國早已亡國，也就≠中華人民共和國≠擁有整個大陸+台澎金馬!!!
所以"難怪美國每次提到臺灣問題就吱吱嗚嗚,"也因此狗子仗勢有美國人和中共撐腰!
這只是猜測，美國講究誠實(honest)，台灣是美國軍事佔領基地是事實(truth&fact)，美國誠實的承認這事實，台灣才能脫離中華民國!
以上是些淺見，僅盼得共同守護偺的台灣!

[賴恍]

[分享生活]

台灣人幾時才能脫離偽政權統治？

[開心愛]

臺灣不等於中華華民國是因為領地的關係,中華民國領地沒有臺灣跟澎湖,但是中華民國捏照歷史欺騙我們有臺灣跟澎湖,開羅公報,波之坦公報,都不是有效的法律名,地位比舊金山和約還低.

中華民國＝中華人民共和國＝中國人的國,因為中華民國是聯合國的創始國,地其地位在聯合國被取代,但是聯合國椅子上寫的是中華民國,國號改為中華人民共和國,中華民國早就獨立也無法再獨立,因為他的領土在中國大陸包含（金門馬祖）,他一直把擁有中華民國籍（臺灣人）當成是他的人民,串改歷史臺灣澎湖是他的領土,不就瞞天過海,在國際法上的國家實體應該必須擁有以下條件：（1）固定的人口；（2）既定的國界；（3）政府；（4）與其他國家發展關係的能,這些假象都有了像不像個國家,沒注意還都被他給騙了,等於中華民國綁架（臺灣人）中華民國籍,當他的人民,再矇騙擁有台彭金馬領地,然後搞個烏龍外交,不就四樣全都有了,表面上看似個國家為什麼不能加入聯合國？為什麼美國說台灣跟中華民國都不是國家,因為中華民國是個名而條件不構成國家,臺灣當然不是個國家,因為台灣還沒建國,不知你懂了沒,因中國稱的分裂國土老實說只有金門馬祖,臺灣是因為中華民國卡住跟一堆有沒有的假歷史文件綁住,他的外交權再中華人民共和國,所以一天到晚中共打壓其他小國只能有一個中國,附帶條件是承認台澎也是中華人民共和國的,所以中華民國最終還是要跟中共統一.但是我們臺彭走我們自己的路,但中共野心很大也想一併將臺灣吞下去.

[西雅圖夜未眠]

補充:若台灣是美國軍事佔領基地=二次世戰後中華民國早已亡國，也就≠中華人民共和國≠擁有整個大陸+金馬!!!

[開心愛]

正確,是不是真相越來越清楚了呢？

[echunglan菜根]

羞恥心？白賊九只會惱羞成怒啦！
貪污特別費被起訴卻決定參選2008總統，美國膽敢公布馬英九仍舊擁有綠卡或者公民資格(他已經是美國公民的老爸了不是嗎？)當心馬英九宣布參選2012年美國總統，反正出生證明對馬家來說沒個準，若有需要馬家也會變出一張美國出生證明來，以便參選美國總統。

[西雅圖夜未眠]

致 台獨份子:
狗子確定是美國人爸爸、配偶，狗子本身若是持有綠卡=美國居民(準國民準公民還不是美國公民)，隨時可入居美國境內(隨時可從台灣落跑)、並享有所有美國權利與義務(除了投票權)；除非，狗子以英國或他國護照(就是他國國民)申請美國居民(持有綠卡者)，這樣狗子確定雙重國籍就該下台!

中選會對綠卡有法律漏洞!

[polao]

看看台灣平民政府的條文，當初二次大戰後美國有憑有據的公諸於世。以往少見偶爾或像李登輝競選總統。航空母艦來台巡邏，今美國二艘航空母艦長駐琉球群島與六艘神盾鑑加強巡邏台海，元月又增加二十幾架性能優越的猛獸B22長駐日本距離台灣只110哩的那霸˙可說譬如依拉克，馬媒體從不報導這也代表馬變為區長的原因。馬一黨獨大天不怕地不怕最怕阿扁趴趴走。又怕民進黨整合這是牠的痛處。台灣人民抗暴一途別無其它選擇，心痕手辣裝無辜的馬英九變本加厲加速統一的策略去除選舉。台灣人民還無動於衷嗎!!

[bigone]

* Close WindowClose Window

Times Online Logo 222 x 25

* Print this page

From The Sunday Times
December 28, 2008
Stand firm, Mr Obama, China is a paper tiger
The new president should face down Beijing as its economy crumbles and workers press for democracy
Michael Sheridan

Any day now Barack Obama will be handed the transition dossier on the most important relationship in the world, that between America and China. He will find there the wisdom of a generation of elite policy makers, still dominated by the statecraft of Henry Kissinger. He should tear it up.

For the first time since I watched a million demonstrators take control of the streets of Shanghai in June 1989, China is entering a period of dynamic political change driven from below – and Washing-ton needs to raise its game.

Last week three Nobel laureates – Seamus Heaney, Nadine Gordimer and Wole Soyinka – spoke in support of 300 Chinese signatories to the bravest document to emerge from the people’s republic since that bloodstained summer. Charter 08 is a manifesto for democracy, justice, a free market and a federal republic of China.

“The era of emperors and warlords is on the way out,” it proclaims, “the time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states.”

The minions of state security have already started arresting the charter’s supporters. Yet it is spreading online, defeating an army of website censors.

This is China, almost 20 years after Tiananmen Square. Viral politics is infecting the system. A staggering 253m people get their news from the internet. Chat rooms have become a Chinese agora, seething with profanity and rage against the powerful. A civic movement known as weiquan, taking its name from a Chinese character that can mean “rights” as well as “power”, is growing among victims of the system – the evicted; the cheated; the bereaved parents of babies who drank poisoned milk, and of schoolchildren killed in the collapsing classrooms during the Sichuan earthquake last spring.

The world crisis means that the Communist party’s economic miracle – if it ever deserved the term – is fading. Founded on cheap exports to credit-junkie American consumers, it is in deep trouble. Party officials are trying to reverse a stock market crash, a property slump and thousands of factory closures. The security forces are trying to suppress myriad worker protests against layoffs and unpaid wages.

Sporadic, incoherent yet unmistakable, a new China is coming to life online and on the street, liberating itself by stealth from the “new China” falsely proclaimed by Mao Tse-tung in 1949. That regime is now old China. How will Obama deal with this transformation? Will his China policy be one of continuity or of change?

The presence among his advisers of Jeffrey Bader and Susan Shirk is not encouraging. Bader is a former US diplomat in China who also serves as senior vice-presi-dent of Stonebridge, a firm that helps corporate clients to do business with Beijing. Guess what? He advocates private persuasion, not “negative soundbites”, as the best way to convince the Chinese regime to improve its conduct. Shirk served in the Clinton administration on east Asia and is also an advocate of the conventional wisdom that pragmatism usually equals silence.

Then there is the business lobby, dutifully lining up to caricature anyone promising change as a China basher or worse a protectionist. I doubt that Obama’s voters elected him to keep the world safe for out-sourcing by the Fortune 500. He can do better than this.

The fact is, whatever foreigners do, change is coming in China through the Chinese people. The risk for America is that if it relies on traditional emissaries cocooned in protocol and five-star hotels, it will miss a huge opportunity.

Instead of business as usual, Obama should exploit the Obama factor. How will ordinary Chinese feel when the charismatic young American president stands alongside their own leaders, so well described by the Prince of Wales as ghastly old waxworks? The waxworks will struggle to explain recent American events to their people, who have always been told that America is (a) racist (b) ruled by dynasties named Clinton or Bush and (c) run by a cabal of white men on Wall Street.

Don’t forget: millions of people in China genuinely see America as in its Chinese name – mei guo, the “beautiful country” – a haven for their ancestors or relatives and an inspiration to China’s republican revolutionaries of 1911.

To reach them, the new president must discard two myths perpetuated by Kissinger and his disciples. The first is that China is so powerful that its imperious leaders must always be placated on democracy and human rights. The second is that only privileged interlocutors – like Bader, employed by consulting firms when not in government – can deal with the Chinese elite.

These self-serving fables have given a club of cynical pragmatists a paralysing grip on China policy in the endless turf wars between America’s bureaucrats, spies and soldiers.

Obama is promising change. Where better to start than here where there is a mind-set that has not changed since Kissinger prepared the way for Richard Nixon to go to China in 1972. Thanks to recent scholarship, we now know that Mao courted Nixon only out of fear that the Soviet Union planned to strike against his economically ruined agrarian nation.

Mao and his silkworm, Zhou Enlai, spun a web of diplomacy that lured Kissinger and Nixon to come as tribute-bearers in the mistaken hope that the Chinese would help them win “peace with honour” in Viet-nam. “The relationship was established on the basis of the US being the supplicant,” says Roderick MacFarquhar of Harvard University. The Chinese have cleverly kept it that way for 36 years.

Yet the reality is that China is a poor agricultural country. It may have the world’s fourth biggest economy but its population of 1.3 billion means that in terms of wealth per capita it does not even rank in the top 100 nations. China’s rivers and lakes are ruined. Its air is poisonous. The one-child policy means that by mid-century it will face a crisis as fewer workers support more than 300m old people. The leadership is stale, the party split by factions and the armed forces are untested except by repression. This is not the next superpower. It isa paper tiger.

The American mandarins like to claim that China is too inscrutable and dangerous to offend. It isn’t. All the democracies have to do is to speak out consistently and in public for Chinese democrats, to support political prisoners and to refuse to break ranks when the regime tries to single out this or that country for punishment. The Chinese people will be watching.

Like Nixon, the next American president has a chance to “seize the hour”. Obama should take his cue from Charter 08 – not the memoirs of Kissinger.

Andrew Sullivan is away

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.



Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions

News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround



Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

[rice]

所以馬的可以性災了獲的發消費券 因為債留子孫干他家屁事
中國武力治台干他屁事
一張綠卡他就酸遠遠了 這叫有恃無恐 原形畢露

[rice]

所以馬的可以幸災樂禍的發消費券 因為債留子孫干他家屁事
中國武力治台干他屁事
一張綠卡他就酸遠遠了 這叫有恃無恐 原形畢露

[阿土]

我一直懷疑
美國好像很包僻那個阿久
他想再中國與台灣之間取得利益
這一點我們一定要突破
讓美國知道他應該扮演的角色和面對目前台灣、中國、美國之間的三角習題
目前得知阿扁是美國方面要修理阿扁、以致阿扁困坐黑牢
全世界最糟糕的國家就是美國
世界金融風暴也是美國的傑作
他想扮演天使、無奈上帝卻將他扁到地獄去
所以、他只能當魔鬼
大家一起為台灣祈禱
希望這的的危機趕快消失
阿久的政權也要因為綠卡的關係、讓他下台
台灣才能有和平的一天
阿們