OK, Lets talk some foreign policy.

[Nimble_Idea]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
Whenever FP is brought up here at DU it is almost always cast as some economic argument or somehow we should be for peace and no fighting should ever take place. At least that's the feeling I get especially when the vocal group gets going.

But, I want to bring up the Taiwan issue. I believe it is the issue that lost John Kerry the election last time around. It wasn't gay marriage , it wasn't Shrubolicious's awesome tax cuts, and it sure as hell wasn't his war on terror. People knew about all these loser issues(And they are as irrelevant and unpopular today) and they still voted basically 50/50 against each other. It is called a culture war. But what little of undecided voters there were, I believe the Taiwan issue broke the donkey's back.

It was made perfectly clear during the campaign.
When Scrbya was asked about the situation, He CLEARLY stated that he would use everything we had to defend Taiwan.

Kerry on the other hand....Said in essence that we weren't really obligated to defend Taiwan and no where do we have a treaty to do so.
He may be right, but It was clear what he was saying: No, I'm not going to defend Taiwan.

Given the fact that Scubya and his cronies are the ones building up this empire of the east, you have to wonder what exactly is the grand plan? The Final Solution? Is it the Dragon of biblical times? I wonder how screwed up these people really are....no not the Chinese, the Repugs. I really do think they will try their best to destroy the world and fulfill their prophecy. In all the craziness going on around the world today....you just have to wonder...

I support defending Taiwan and its freedom in spite of threats from the belligerent dragon. Where do you stand?

[boston bean]

1. I don't know, really............... eom

[Oversea Visitor]

2. how many people you want to fight hey

as least he is talking fact.
Good luck in war with China then. Taiwan is part of China hey. They just a breakaway state after the communist revolution. Let them solve it. Its being peaceful so far. Dont give Taiwan bad ideas. End up people turn into cannon fodders. Why so bloodthirsty hey.
You poke you nose in then big disaster happen. Cant win in Vietnam, Cant win in Korea, Cant win in Iraq..... why get into a another cant win mess. This sure be BIG BIG MESS. Gee China versus US all make in Taiwan.

[Nimble_Idea]

3. Ahh, I knew you would come.

I don't know about poking noses. But I know where the Red Machine will stick its foot if China tried. We didn't have bunker busters in the 50s-->80s :P

:nuke:

By the way, what makes you think we wouldn't win it?
Have you heard of Armageddon? I hope you have prayed. Better get baptized by the water before the Baptism of fire.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Yikes

I just sit and watch the fireworks then hey.
No skin of mine hey
Me Malaysian
Only need to pray Indonesia dont get a crazy leader
Otherwise we peaceful.

Me go pray for you hehe.

[punpirate]

4. Well, let's keep the issue in perspective...

... the large numbers of evangelicals coming out to vote in 2004 weren't thinking about Taiwan. Taiwan wasn't a major issue in the campaign--over the course of many months, it was rarely mentioned in the press.

Now, let's go back to the foreign policy issue itself. China's claim on Taiwan is still considered legitimate. It is Chinese territory. The fact that a political faction (which happened to be to our liking--or at least to MacArthur's) has occupied the island since the revolution makes it a problem diplomatically, but not an insurmountable diplomatic problem. (Describing the various Chinese statements on the matter as "threats from the belligerent dragon" might not be considered as helping that diplomatic situation.)

The very simple point to be made in this is that neither China nor the United States is going to risk a nuclear exchange over Taiwan--that's the bottom line. So, ultimately, it will be a diplomatic problem for some time to come, and that's pretty much how one can view Kerry's statements on the matter.

What is more at issue, I think, is arms sales to Taiwan. DeLay and many others didn't just take junkets to Taiwan on lobbyists' money to get a bit of culture. They were there to grease the skids for more US arms sales to Taiwan.

Now, at some point, that seems both self-serving and belligerent in itself. Are we furthering tensions with China (and between China and Taiwan) by selling Taiwan more arms than it needs for normal defenses? That's not a question I can readily answer, but at some point, a matter of degree may create a matter of kind--that China may come to see Taiwan as a client state of the United States, bent on threatening China's sovereignty. There is a rough historical parallel here--what was the US reaction to a Soviet client state ninety miles off its southern coast? It could be characterized as going stark raving bonkers at the prospect--and that was long before Castro contemplated allowing intermediate-range ballistic missiles on Cuban soil (which in itself was a much more complicated scenario than was generally known at the time, due to the presence of US Thor missiles and air bases in Turkey) and has persisted long after those missiles were gone--and has even persisted after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What I'm positing here is that Shrub's mere suggestion of US defense of Taiwan is not the central issue--it's just so much escaping hot air for the benefit of the diehard Birchers in his constituency. There are other things at work, including the great desire of US firms to sell arms to other countries, including Taiwan, even though those sales may not be in the best interests of the US (or Taiwan).

Besides, it doesn't help Bush's uncle Bucky's Chinese investments if we get into a spat with China.

There's lots of posturing--on both sides--and that needs to be dealt with diplomatically. US planners are well aware that fighting a conventional war with China over Taiwan is a lose-lose situation (and violates the one dictum in place in history--don't fight a land war in Asia), since it plays into the one strength of the Chinese--sheer numbers of forces--and any nuclear escalation of such a war would create heavy losses in both countries. China's nuclear arsenal is at the moment still quite small by Cold War standards, but can still do considerable damage.

Given that this is an effective stalemate, with Taiwan in the middle, it makes a great deal of sense to continue speaking cautiously and using diplomatic means to defuse tensions. My guess is that the State Dept. is continuing to behave in this fashion, regardless of what either Bush or the Chinese are saying publicly.

Cheers.