Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

[Platypus]

Senators, you have to think of the realities here, not the ideologies. This policy is dangerous to us, is unlikely to work, and hurts our relations with the People's Republic of China. It's also bloody hypocritical to say "Oh well, realistically, we have to support the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan" but then go around and do this with China, a nation much more important to us then Pakistan.

[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?

[Emsworth]

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.

[True Democrat]

I'm really split on this issue.  Right now, I could vote either way.  Although I think we should support democracy around the world, I still believe that we should amke Taiwain realize that they are a rebellion and that they should rejoin China.

[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?

[Emsworth]

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 rights by repealing a clause under which the government officially aids violent rebellion in a sovereign country? Private citizens can still 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? Or perhaps, any country whose government has openly opposed the Iraq war should be invaded, because it has insulted our nation as a whole?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Jake]

Off topic, but has anyone ever had jellyfish? Quite good I thought.

[MasterJedi]

I'm really split on this issue.  Right now, I could vote either way.  Although I think we should support democracy around the world, I still believe that we should amke Taiwain realize that they are a rebellion and that they should rejoin China.

If Taiwan rejoined China, terrible things would happen on that island. In NO WAY should Taiwan rejoin China until it becomes democratic.

[Emsworth]

If Taiwan rejoined China, terrible things would happen on that island. In NO WAY should Taiwan rejoin China until it becomes democratic.

Not necessarily. Taiwan could become a Special Administrative Region like Hong Kong. I don't think that any one of us doubts that Hong Kong is much better off than the mainland.

Also, it has long been the policy of the government to recognize a One China Policy. This is even the official position of the real-life Bush Administration.

[MasterJedi]

If Taiwan rejoined China, terrible things would happen on that island. In NO WAY should Taiwan rejoin China until it becomes democratic.

Not necessarily. Taiwan could become a Special Administrative Region like Hong Kong. I don't think that any one of us doubts that Hong Kong is much better off than the mainland.

Also, it has long been the policy of the government to recognize a One China Policy. This is even the official position of the real-life Bush Administration.

Not necessarily? Would you be willing to take that chance? I for one would not, this bill needs to be defeated and Taiwan needs to remain independent!

[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?

[Jake]

Not recognizing a functioning and sovereign nation that meets all the criteria for being recognized and one that is far more Democratic than many nations we already recognize is patently absurd. There are two Chinas, whether or not the PRC likes it.

[Emsworth]

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?

[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.

[Emsworth]

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.

Directly funding pro-democracy groups in China will not achieve much. More subtle diplomatic measures, as well as economic pressure (perhaps even an embargo) would achieve much more than funding "pro-democracy" groups.

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.

I disagree. The Monroe Doctrine's effect has been overestimated. It did not succeed just because Monroe stated it; it succeeded because the British supported it, and the Royal Navy agreed to help enforce it. It was not until the 1840s that the Monroe Doctrine was actively enforced by the Americans themselves.

Let me give you an example of where realism succeeded in the nineteenth century. President James K. Polk, as you know, sought to acquire the Oregon Territory. The idealistic approach was "Fifty-Four Forty-Eight or Fight." The realistic approach was to compromise with Britain. Undoubtedly, the latter was preferable.

[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.

[Emsworth]

"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.

I have no problem whatsoever with aiding Taiwan. Aiding groups on mainland China is not a wise idea, however, for the reasons I have outlined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Chinese were funding groups that wanted to overthrow our government, wouldn't you think that it is cause for war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, the idea was idealistic. The implementation, however, was realistic. I hardly doubt that realistically, the U.S. would have actually waged war with, say, a large group of European nations trying to intervene in Latin America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But an idealistic one.

[Bono]

I'm really split on this issue.  Right now, I could vote either way.  Although I think we should support democracy around the world, I still believe that we should amke Taiwain realize that they are a rebellion and that they should rejoin China.

The US is also a rebellion. Should they join England?
(I'm in favor of this bill, btw)

[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.

[Defarge]

Absolutely not.  The United States must reserve all available options when it comes to defeating the People's Republic of China.  While at the current time, I could see the wisdom in refraining from aiding resistance in the PRC, I see no reason to take away the option entirely.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not.  The United States must reserve all available options when it comes to defeating the People's Republic of China.  While at the current time, I could see the wisdom in refraining from aiding resistance in the PRC, I see no reason to take away the option entirely.

I don't see how the repeal of this clause would take away any option. If the Republic of Atlasia wishes to employ any particular action, it is not prevented from doing so.

If the clause is interpreted as "the Atlasian Senate may pass a law aiding rebels," it is redundant, because there is nothing to suggest that the Senate could not do otherwise in the first place. If it is interpreted as, "the government may grant funds to pro-democracy groups," it is unconstitutional, because appropriations may only be made in consequence of specific grants by the Senate, not "blank checks." And finally, if it is interpreted as, "the government will grant funds to pro-democracy groups," then it is unwise, as I have pointed out.

To illustrate my position, I would like to quote from the original Senate debate:

I think that openly supporting people whose goal is, as far as I can tell, the overthrow of the current Chinese government, is not a good idea.

[It] sounds risky to me, it seems to be an open act of indirect aggression against China. If we are to fund these groups in China, I would far prefer it to be done a bit more discreetly than this.

... It carries an obvious diplomatic risk.

These are essentially the reasons for which I favor the current bill. It is not because I am opposed to the spread of freedom, as some may have suggested.

[The Duke]

Given the total absence of Chinese response to the Taiwan Protection Act and the appropraited funds to pro-democracy groups

We are speaking realistically. Whether the GM saw fit to provide a Chinese response or not is a completely different matter.

It is not for the government to determine what is realistic, it is for the GM to determine that.  The GM (four of them, actually) has made his decision.  Why are we responding to problems that have not arisen and show no evidence of arising?

[Emsworth]

It is not for the government to determine what is realistic, it is for the GM to determine that.  The GM (four of them, actually) has made his decision.  Why are we responding to problems that have not arisen and show no evidence of arising?

Well, I hardly think that it is reasonable to expect the government to just hand over sovereignty to the GM. The government, and in fact any private citizen whatsoever, has the right to give an opinion that something would be likely.

[Defarge]

Absolutely Mr. Vice-President, it carries a definite diplomatic risk.  But hostile relations between us and the PRC would be excellent from an economic standpoint.  Already, too many Atlasian businesses have gone to China for the cheaper labor, to the point where any flare up in relations with China would result in dramatic ramifications for the economy. 

The People's Republic of China is comitted to dominating the 21st century.  One of their strategies has been to tie themselves so close to the United States that we cannot contest their expansion without destroying ourselves economically.  To ensure that this does not occur, we must discourage American businesses from going there.  There are two ways, extremely high tarrifs, or artificially hostile relations.  I supported President Pbrunsel last year and I support him now, China must be halted.  If we don't do it now, we never will.

[The Duke]

It is not for the government to determine what is realistic, it is for the GM to determine that.  The GM (four of them, actually) has made his decision.  Why are we responding to problems that have not arisen and show no evidence of arising?

Well, I hardly think that it is reasonable to expect the government to just hand over sovereignty to the GM. The government, and in fact any private citizen whatsoever, has the right to give an opinion that something would be likely.

We haven't handed over sovereignty, as we retain the rght to make any decisions we wish in making our policy.  However, I do think we should take the actual outcomes into consideration, and not simply make decisions based on what a few people think the outcome should have been.