Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (115450)	9/21/2003 10:42:38 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<In fact, Tibet pretty well disproves your case.> How so? When non-cooperation isn't tried, how does that prove that non-cooperation won't work? China has never suffered any punishment (serious, global sanctions and embargoes), over Tibet. If the whole world (or just the U.S., Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the EU) placed an airtight embargo on all imports and exports from China, until China gave Tibet the freedom that, say, Spain allows the Catalans, what would happen? As you point out, and I agree, the world is unlikely to do this, because they just don't care that much about Tibet. Trading and investing with a billion Han Chinese is much more important (not just for the French, but the U.S. and Israel as well). This simply proves that colonialism and suppression of minority rights is still tolerated, by most of the world. But if the world decided not to cooperate, then nobody could get away with it, not even China. Israel and the U.S., and Europe and Japan, we know what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, and we keep trading and investing with them. This is tacit consent, tacit approval. We are voting with our dollars, voting to let the Chinese continue to destroy the nation of Tibet.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (115450)	9/21/2003 11:03:34 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<For example: Let's say China occupies Taiwan. If this happens by force, then the rest of the world can non-violently non-cooperate>>> Taiwan might object - violently. But it seems an excellent exercise in what part the UN would or should play in case it happens By time the shelling starts its too late, unless the French Navy intervenes(g) Preemptive action ? 14 Resolutions? Our trade with China and also Taiwan is becoming more important each day. Have to walk a thin line, negotiate and more. Despite child labor or other inhumane acts in our eyes. It is only the US military power (or threat of) left now to deter such an invasion if the UN does not act. Would the French, Germans or Russians step in to prevent China from taking over Taiwan? I would like very much to hear what the French would say in the UN if it appeared serious trouble was brewing in China. Once more I suppose the US would be the one who, in defending its own trade and investments, would be forced to lead the way and try to implement a solution to keep the trade routes open so that the French and other European countries could continue to do business and profit, while we get to called empire builders, colonizers, war mongers and protectors of Taiwan. Sig . .