SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1364)12/12/2000 10:57:46 PM
From: CVJ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
I hope they don't get us in the same situation as Irag - not finding the cajones to finish the job once it starts. I don't think the same crew, Cheney and Powell, will act any different with someone as big as the Chinese are. Pressure from Japan, Korea and the rest of SEATO will cause us to wimp out. We can't call their bluff by ourselves, there are too many US assets in the global multi-nationals to lose. We might use up a lot of smart bombs and other things to spend money on with military-industrial complex. All we can do is end up with egg on our face again. We can't do a nuclear armageddon; but anything less and we also lose. Not much else but appeasement will result.

Chas
ps. I can deal with your postings but not your stock picks! (VBG)



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1364)9/30/2003 9:52:01 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hello Hawkmoon Ron, Following up to this discussion of December 2000 in which you also participated in, ... <<I have to disagree with the belief that Bush is weak. Any lack of sophistication he may have in foreign policy is easily made up for in Dick Cheney and Colin Powell>>

... Three years on, and you are perhaps 1/3 correct, maybe 1/3 hoping, and possibly 1/3 wrong.

<<I think the Chinese are afraid that he will possess more of a backbone on the Taiwan issue than Clinton has shown and will call their bluff with regard to their bluster>>

... as it is turning out, the administration of hopefully strong and possibly sophisticated is busily but sophisticatedly doing China's thankless work as China is 'weakly and without confidence', doing nothing, much as the French does:

Taiwan: Chen Baits China -- But to No Avail
Sep 30, 2003
stratfor.biz
Summary

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian said Sept. 29 that his Democratic Progressive Party would push for a new constitution by 2006. The move is part of a strategy to bait China into provocative steps during the run-up to Taiwan's elections in March 2004. However, thus far Chen's plan has fallen flat.

Analysis

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian said Sept. 29 that his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would push for a new constitution for the island by 2006.

Chen's move to lobby for constitutional reform is part of a strategy to bait China into provocative steps during the run-up to Taiwan's elections in March 2004. If the Chinese leadership repeats the aggressive behavior it displayed in the past two elections, Chen likely would receive a badly needed boost in the polls. So far, though, Beijing has refused to bite and Chen faces defeat -- leaving the president with little option but to push harder.

As chairman of the party, Chen told supporters at the DPP's 17th anniversary celebration that he is set to draw up a new constitution in 2006, when the party will be 20 years old. Chen's latest political move is two-pronged. First, it helps differentiate the DPP from the rival Kuomintang (KMT) and its offshoot, the People's First Party (PFP), by calling for reform of Taiwan's constitution, which was adopted in 1947 under KMT rule. The constitution has been revised several times since it was created -- frequently because of DPP lobbying efforts -- and is still widely held to need further revisions. Second, it is seen as a step toward Taiwan's independence from China -- the key rallying point of the DPP's political platform.

In the latest polls, Chen and the DPP trail by about 10 points behind the joint ticket of KMT Chairman Lien Chan for president and PFP Chairman James Soong for vice president -- a trend that likely will be exacerbated once the campaign begins in earnest. Hampered by a sluggish economy and high unemployment, Chen is hard-pressed to use his administration's track record as the basis for a presidential campaign. Instead, the incumbent is focusing on the most salient topic his party can offer: Taiwan's future political status.

By raising the issue of constitutional reform, Chen is signaling that Taiwan could make further strides toward independence during his next term. The island already is unsettled by a controversy over its name: On Sept. 1, the nation began issuing passports with the word "Taiwan" on the cover under the words "Republic of China." And on Sept. 6, former President Lee Tung Hui led a demonstration of about 150,000 people in Taipei, calling for the island to change its official name from the Republic of China to simply "Taiwan." Independence is an emotional topic for millions of island residents who take pride in the nation's economic and political achievements of the past few decades and feel they have little in common with the mainland. However, renaming the island would require a constitutional change.

Prior to his call for constitutional reform, Chen advocated a national referendum political process. Such a process is a sensitive topic because it is viewed as a precedent for a vote on formal independence. In fact, a special session ended July 10 without Taiwan's Legislative Yuan voting on a bill that would have paved the way for referendums on the construction of a nuclear power plant, and on Taiwan's status with the World Health Organization. However, the issue has not gone away. After the Parliament reconvened Sept. 5, Chen renewed calls for a referendum process to occur prior to or during the presidential election -- regardless of whether a referendum law is passed or not. And in the past few days, Chen and his party have said that a referendum is the only way the legislature can start the constitutional reform process.

Chen's push for legal reform is not only a clever, stealthy call for pro-independence voters to back him as the president, but also a way to provoke China's leaders.

In the past two elections, Beijing's saber-rattling has been a great help to pro-independence candidates. In 1996, China staged ballistic missile exercises in the Taiwan Strait to frighten Taiwanese voters away from maverick incumbent KMT and pro-independence candidate Lee. Lee won a landslide victory.

In the 2000 elections, Chen carried the election mainly because the KMT and PFP, which support reunification with China, split the vote and all but handed Chen the presidency. However, the race was extremely close, and the PFP's Soong held a marginal lead in the polls heading into the election. Incensed that a pro-independence DPP candidate might become president, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji warned that the Chinese people were ready to shed blood and sacrifice their lives to defend the unity of their motherland. Zhu's bellicose comments are believed to have struck a discordant note with voters and strongly contributed to Soong's defeat.

It seems that this time around, Beijing has learned its lesson and is holding its missiles -- and its tongue. Chinese leaders so far have met Chen's challenges with a relatively muted response and appear to be content to watch passively from the sidelines, especially while Chen falls behind in the polls. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said Sept. 30 that Beijing would "continue to implement the policy of peaceful reunification."

In contrast, Washington has been very vocal about Chen's latest political move. U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has reminded Chen of a previous pledge not to change Taiwan's political status. "We noted in August of 2000 that President Chen pledged not to declare independence, not to change the name of Taiwan's government, not to add state-to-state theory to the constitution, and not to promote a referendum that would change the status quo on independence or unification," Boucher said.

Chen's strategy of goading Beijing into helping his campaign does not appear to be working, and there is no reason to believe more goading would change the situation. Beijing is demonstrating unprecedented self-control, and Washington already is signaling that Chen is testing U.S. limits. Unless China's leaders act imprudently -- a possibility that cannot be entirely discounted -- and as long as the alliance between Chen's rivals Lien and Soong stands firm, there likely will be a new Taiwanese president in 2004.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1364)7/21/2004 9:53:01 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hello Ron Hawk Reece, <<I have to disagree with the belief that Bush is weak>>

I do not know if Bush is weak or not, but I do know that weakness can show through in a variety of ways, for example, in clarity of thinking, logic of reason, sense of proportion, honesty, and intellect, not to mention the courage to face the truth, and re-examine faulty judgment and unwind unwise decisions.

Weakness sometimes can even be indicated by foolishness of presentation, and language, like “Mission Accomplished” or “Bring It On”, tempting obvious and inescapable fate, in the comfort of a beautiful office, or on the deck of a luxury yacht.

Whereas strength is actually not about presentation, but result, preferably against the odds.

<<Any lack of sophistication he may have in foreign policy is easily made up for in Dick Cheney and Colin Powell>>

There may be something to what you wrote, as the dynamic dual certainly still have a few more months in which to make up for the lacking in what you termed “sophistication”, and do so “easily”.

<<If anything, I think the Chinese are afraid that he will possess more of a backbone on the Taiwan issue than Clinton has shown and will call their bluff with regard to their bluster>>

Geopolitics is not about backbone or fists, it is about tapping the energy and shoving with the flow, leverage, and positioning, and finally, getting one's sustainable result without committing to an unsustainable destiny of happenings.

On <<bluster>>, it is a matter of interpretation, and the apparent <<bluff>> may now be on the table Message 20330369 .

Let us watch and see if the script goes according to imagination Message 20330647

Chugs, Jay

P.S. BTW, we are here, again Message 14861804
<<November 22nd, 2000
… Right now, the two presidential contenders do not inspire confidence overseas, especially as they do not even inspire confidence at home.>>

It is possible that whatever happens, nothing wished for will occur, as the course is set, charter paid for, and result ordained.

P.P.S. On this, Message 14861804
<<November 22nd, 2000
... The US as a destination of investment money will eventually fall out of favor as the other large economies either reform, depreciate into value category, or drag the US down as these other large economies vaporize. The first two possibilities are more likely prospects, but not central to the case against the dollar ...>>

... the democratic FDI investor electorates are voting with their wallet, purse, money clip, coin dispenser, piggy bank, and bank drafts into USD-space, the peripheral province otherwise called China, presumably for reasons of wishing to do well.

... the centrally planned paper money electorates, otherwise known as central banks, are voting for US paper, and you will likely agree that central planners are inavriable always wrong.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1364)7/21/2004 12:04:20 PM
From: Steve Lokness  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
<<I have to disagree with the belief that Bush is weak. >>

Bush may not have been "weak" when he entered office - reality has changed that. If the war in Iraq had gone well instead of distracting from our real mission of getting bin Laden, he would have appeared anything but weak. Sadly, the mess that has developed has created situations around the world where countries now realize that we CANNOT take on anything more at this time. That means Bush, Cheney and Powell are indeed weak from a pragmatic point of view. Since they are the architects of the war in Iraq - they are themselves responsible for this weakness!

Steve