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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (8658)	6/2/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: Stitch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Sam, I will weigh in here with a resounding endorsement of your views on China as many of you already suspect I would. But I also will offer a nod to Larry in this respect. We must never totally relax our vigilence in the sense that we have seen over the last several years. I for one, would like to see us address our military preparedness all over again. I do not pretend to know exactly what that status is. I have an intestinal discomfort that we have let slip our defense status for too long to feel comfortable. I say this though I think DMA's scenario is absurd and far out of the reach of possibility. best, Stitch (Lovely to see this thread come alive again)

To: Sam who wrote (8658)	6/3/1999 7:47:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Sam- No, I'm not suggesting the current leadership in China is equivalent to Pol Pot. Why, it's been at least a generation since the government of China was that bad. My reference to the Khmer Rouge was to point to the difficulty many people have in evaluating the potential for evil on the part of governments. Gentleman on the left- and I'm not suggesting you are one- tend to believe "pas d'ennemies a guache": there are no enemies on the left. So they choose not see evil that exists in governments of the left. <<At least in the mid and late 80s, they were not terribly concerned about a Chinese invasion. They were more concerned about Deng's health at that time, and what might happen in China after he died.>> I find this line of thinking vaguely unsettling, at least insofar as you try to draw any conclusions from it. True, in the 80's or even the 90's, the prospect of Beijing launching a war against Taiwan is not an immediate one. It is only human nature that people will be more concerned about near-term prospects- like the Deng succession- than about prospects that are more remote. But that in no way establishes the absurdity of DMA's scenario, nor have any other of your statements, IMO. I don't think it's at all far-fetched that at some time in the next 50 years, Beijing could launch a military attack against Taiwan. It would, IMO, simply take a cast of players who exist in Beijing today- albeit not at the highest levels of government- coupled with some appropriate trigger (increased Chinese military capabilities plus a declaration of independence on the part of Taiwan??). Prudent leaders in the Taipai and Washington will act in a manner to minimize the probability of that happening. The Clinton administration has not acted in that manner. Regards, Larry P.S. Only slightly off the subject is the following observation. Notra Trulock, a DOE security officer, testified before Congress that when he warned the administration about Chinese spying in 1995, his concerns were shrugged off as those of "a Cold War warrior". Well Trulock's concerns have been shown to be well founded, and that those who dismissed Trulock's concerns were irresponsible and wrong. My sense is there are those on this thread whose reaction parallels that of the Clinton administration.