August 31, 2004

On China Again

Battle Line Drawn on China/Taiwan by GOP

It doesn't get any clearer than this:

"If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan, then the United States will respond appropriately," it warned. "America will help Taiwan defend itself."

Again I ask...War with China by 2020? Or even before the 2008 Olympics?

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

this sounds more like the GOP I ucrrently have come to love:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Posted by: jakec at August 31, 2004 09:08 AM

Comment Removed Due to Excessive Length. See link in previous comment for deleted text.

Posted by: jakec at August 31, 2004 09:10 AM

a. whilst the second posting bears my name, it was, in fact, blakie who removed it.

b. see link above to understand the GOP (and appearantly Blake blog mantra)

c. i think i can still post a link, unless i have hit my limit. read below - michael moore at the RNC - these guys hate america, too:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_moore_2

d. try as you might to stiffle my genius, blake, you cannot shackle me with your 125 word limit.

Posted by: jakec at August 31, 2004 10:21 AM

off topic: blake, please add a spell-checker to this blog ...

Posted by: jakec at August 31, 2004 10:31 AM

oh no - reaching link limitations set by the fuhrer. anyway - here is the flip-flopping we have come to love from 43:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_27

Posted by: jakec at August 31, 2004 10:57 AM

Well, anyway, speaking of China, we're heavily indebted to them to the tune of hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. If they make a move on Taiwan, the Taiwanese are on their own--unless they discover oil, of course.

Posted by: The Token Librul at August 31, 2004 05:40 PM

China would be a big enemy is there is a war, and I feel there will be. No matter who is in office. The question is not will we support Taiwan, but who will support them along side us? South Korea, Japan, EU, and others have a big stake in the area.
While some would try to lay this all onto the GOP. The Chinese government has taken Tibet and everyone set back and just talked about how bad things are. Will Tibet be seen as the modern Sudetenland that was ignored?

Posted by: gunner at August 31, 2004 10:22 PM

i don't think we will go to war with china since we have a pretty clear foreign policy of only getting involved with countries who are developing nuclear weapons, while we completely step away from those who already possess them (n. korea). not just my opinion, madeline albright is pretty clear on this point with anyone who will talk to her ... so, yes it is not just a GOP thing and yes, using Tibet as a litmus, we will not intervene in Taiwan. as i said before (and i wasn't joking), you can assure yourself that when china does attack, they will use nuclear weapons development by taiwan as the reason for a pre-emptive strike (which they have already mentioned several times) ...

Posted by: jakec at September 1, 2004 07:12 AM

The "only getting involved with countries who are developing nuclear weapons" is incorrect. We have soldiers helping train other nations to fight terror in many non nuclear countries. The news media is pushing one only. We are moving bases into Eastern Europe and they are not armed with, or trying to get, nuclear arms.
I think a bad president would sacrifice Taiwan, and I feel Bush would when it comes down to it. Nuclear power, and oil is not the issue, press is the issue.

Posted by: gunner at September 1, 2004 11:27 PM

i think u misread - i meant the countries we attack are non-nuclear, not the ones we help. hell - we send more food to North Korea than any other country in the world (think about how small north korea is). and since the military is huge and the people outside of the capital are starving, we are essentially feeding the military of the country which poses the greatest threat to us. the bottomline is countries are scrambling to get WMD as a means to dissuade the US (and others) from intervening in their country.

that's why there is such a push to prevent countries from getting these weapons - this is not a partisan statement nor policy. it is essentially the doctrine of defense we have adopted since the cold war began, regardless of administration. stop them before they get to a point where we can do nothing. come on - if liberia had nukes, do you think we would have aided them a year ago?

anyway - read thoroughly before responding.

Posted by: jakec at September 2, 2004 05:12 PM

since i think that was probably not clear enough for u - u are refering to aid and military assistance. i am not. i am talking about defense policy.

we had something with the soviets called "mutually assured destruction" which we do not have with current nuclear powers (if you even want to refer to them as powers), nor with anyone aspiring to get these weapons. which is what makes them so dangerous - our policy is to stop them before this happens. you may disagree with me, but madeline albright and donald rumsfeld do not and i am sure i would much rather align myself with them on this issue than with yourself. sorry, but it's true.

countries all over the world from libya, to sudan, to south africa, to venezula, to malasyia have tried or are trying to procur these weapons - don't fool urself into believing otherwise. also, because of the demise of the soviet union and the mismanagement of their weapons, eastern europe is a hotbed of weapons activity ...

Posted by: jakec at September 2, 2004 05:20 PM