Ga-ma wrote:sandman wrote:Let the voters decide!
Finally, we agree on something. Hartzell has just weighed in on the State Department's correspondence. Let's focus on the merits - the fact that Hartzell's claimed legal theory hinges on the fact that no announcement of the end of the U.S. military's occupation of Taiwan has been made, and thus, Taiwan is the property of the United States - and as you say "let the voters decide."
Ga-ma, are you really as stupid as you make out here, or just desperately trying to undermine the opinion of one man.
If the point you take were indeed a reality, then the voters that would be deciding if US Military occupation should cease would be the voters in the US, not the voters here, unless of course you feel that all occupying powers should heed 100% to the wishes of the people in the countries that they are occupying. If that were the case, then please explain why China does not heed to the wishes of Tibet for example.
All you have done so far is prove that you are incapable of actually raising any effective debate other than to snipe and attack the messenger personally, something which actually breaks the rules of this site.
Since you still contend that Hartzell is unqualified to hold an opinion on a legal matter as he is not a qualified legal professional, please provide your proof of legal qualification so that everyone here may actually believe you are talking from a point of honour, otherwise you are no better than you are trying to make him out to be. If you are not a qualified legal professional, then for pete's sake STFU.