Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

[PBrunsel]

It makes me shiver to think that the Senate is going to give up on the fight for liberty and freedom in the World.

Has our love of liberty ran dry?

[PBrunsel]

It makes me shiver to think that the Senate is going to give up on the fight for liberty and freedom in the World.

Has our love of liberty ran dry?

With the greatest possible respect, Senator, our love for liberty must be tempered by realism. Should we invade North Korea in order to democratize it? Should we take over the Middle East and depose the despots and the theocrats? Should we invade all of Africa to overthrow the numerous dictators? I would hope that you would disagree. These actions, while they would promote democracy, would not be in our national interests.

We passed that act way back durring my Presidency due to China's open aggression against Taiwan and how they were constantly bad mouthing Atlasia.

So were supposed to cower in a corner and beg forgiveness from China? No way. This bill is surrendering all the right that WE ENJOY AS MEMBERS OF A FREE NATION. Can I say it any clearer than this? By not supporting the entire Taiwan Protection Act we are not standing by our doctrine of Liberty and Justice, for all. I thinkt hat includes the innocent men and women killed at Tianemen Square and by Maos Cultural Revolution.

So were just supposed to let a bullying tryrant nation trying to take an independent island and always insulting our nation as a whole, kill innocent men, women, and children and say that it is because the State demanded it.

Are you a man or a jellyfish Mr. Vice President?

[PBrunsel]

We passed that act way back durring my Presidency due to China's open aggression against Taiwan and how they were constantly bad mouthing Atlasia.

Again, with the greatest possible respect, wouldn't you consider instituting a violent revolution a little bit of an overreaction to "bad mouthing"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are we surrendering our liberties by repealing a clause under which the government officially aids violent rebellion in a sovereign country? Private citizens can fund whatever they want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, Taiwan may or may not be independent, depending on your perspective.

Secondly, insulting our nation is not cause for war. The French have, I am sure, insulted this country; shall we aid a rebellion against the French government as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would strongly prefer, Senator, if you would keep personal attacks out of this debate.

Let me take this point by point:

1. No not at all. They also have openly threatened to take Taiwan several times. THey also institued for about a month an embargo on all Atlaisan goods. I thankfully ended that with aide from Gustaf.

2. We are giving up world liberty by not trying to overthrow an oppressive regime. Have we forgotten Tianamen?

3. Taiwan is independent, I don't really don't care what Amnesty International has to say about that.

4. They took insults to a whole new level by openly threatening Taiwan and having an embargo on Americans goods for a while. Should Cuba try to overthrow our nation's government, would anyone notice if they tried?

5. That was simply a quote from a similar debate about recognizing the PROC in the UN in the 1920's. George H.W. Bush said that to the General Secretary. But I stil say it has merit, and i'm not personally attacking you. Do you have the guts to stand up for freedom. That is is the only question here. Not Constituional double-talk, no fence sitting, no wishy-washy-ness. Do you have the guts to defend freedom and fight for it?

[PBrunsel]

1. No not at all. They also have openly threatened to take Taiwan several times. THey also institued for about a month an embargo on all Atlaisan goods. I thankfully ended that with aide from Gustaf.

The Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of Ronald Reagan are ample provision for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are going to stick to principle, should we invade North Korea, the Middle East, most of Africa, Cuba, much of South America, and Southeast Asia as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even the Taiwan Relations Act does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they have an embargo on our goods, then we should respond by imposing an embargo on theirs. I don't see why we should fund a violent revolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What, Senator, is, according to you, the fundamental purpose of our foreign policy? I think that it is to promote the national interests of Atlasia. We are not here to go about changing regimes. We are here to do whatever is best for Atlasia. You can argue that a free China is best for Atlasia. I will not disagree with you there. However, approaching it by funding (at taxpayer expense, might I add) the overthrow of a sovereign government is not wise.

Foreign policy should be based on realistic decisions, not idealism. Extreme interventionism does not help the Atlasian national interests, but neither does isolationism. An interventionist might say, invade North Korea and restore democracy. But this would be an absurd idea, because hostility with a rogue state that possesses nuclear weapons is not best for our national interest. Neither would isolationism be a good idea, because then the republic appears weak and powerless. When interventionism is in the national interest, we should interve, and when isolation is in the national interest, we should not.

Let me ask you one further question: why don't we invade China and bring democracy by force?

1. The Taiwan Relations Act was mere puppet legislation for the PRC. It only established quasi-diplomatic, not full, relations with Taiwan and didn't even include Quemoy or Matsu. So it was, to quote Lincoln, "as thin as the shadow of a crow that starved to death."

2. We should probabaly also try to use Taiwan Protections-esque tactics in these nations. If the people ,are opressed enough, they will rise up.

3. Bah, that act was a joke as Point #1 states.

4. Thanks to my administration they don't have an embrgo anymore, but they did have one for a while, and this is quite the insult.

5. I support Democratic Revolutions against oppresive regimes. I feel if we give them the support they need, then freedom wil prevail in any nation, ranging from China, to Cuba, to Venezuela, to Zimbabwe, to North Korea.

Second of all, a Democratic China would not be a rogue state. They would be as tough on North Korea as China currently, probabalty even more seeing how since 1950 they had been under Communist Controll and know it's evils.

Idealism is what has guided our foreign policy for years. Did constant "Let's Build More Nuculer Weapons" deals (like those under Nixon to Carter) end the Cold War and the USSR. No, it was Reagan's "Zero Option." That was idealism.

"The World must be made safe for Democracy," was an idealistic quote as well.

Was the Monroe Doctrine "realistic"? Not by 1800's standards. The U.S. had a small army, and little money. But it was the idealism of Monroe and Adams that kept North America free. So Mr. Vice-Preisdent, idealism has suceeded in foriegn policy.

[PBrunsel]

Idealism is what has guided our foreign policy for years. Did constant "Let's Build More Nuculer Weapons" deals (like those under Nixon to Carter) end the Cold War and the USSR. No, it was Reagan's "Zero Option." That was idealism.

On the contrary. Reagan was being realistic in dealing with the Soviets. He did not idealistically suggest, Let's invade Russia and make it "safe for democracy." He did not directly encourage Soviet insurgencies, if I recall correctly. Rather, he used a much more realistic idea: supporting rebellion in the satellite states. That was much more successful.

It was idealism. An aide to to Gorbachev said that the Supreme Soviet took "Zero Options" as a joke. They laughed at it. They called it a "romantics antics" or some rhyme like that. "Supporting rebellion in the satellite states," were pretty much doing that, but China has only one state it really is aiming for, Taiwan, and by repealing the Taiwanese Protection act we are not supporting what you JUST SAID was a good policy.

Lest you forget we tried embargos on China. Have they worked in Cuba? No. This is the best option for freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've tried embargoes, they don't work. Also they Solidarity would not work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the quotation, not the policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a policy for war though. I don't want a war with China, byt the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet it was still sucesfully enforced. You tend to dramatize small and insignifigant aspects of policies. It was idealist to issue that. And you can't argue that ti was not. For a nation not yet 50 years old to tell the "ancient" powers that they can't colonize in America, this "New World" for the imperial powers, was a huge idealistic idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your rwrong there. "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" was never even in the democratic cards. It was simply a campaign slogan, and we tricked Britain out of Oregon, and war easily could have started. Britain just didn't want Oregon due to probelsm with Russia.

[PBrunsel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well we have supported inner revolutions before, they have suceeded. See Poland for example.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But then again, we did pass it. It was enforced. It was idealistic, it worked.So will Clause 2 of the Taiwan protection Act.

[PBrunsel]

Nay, a firm nay.