Blame Taiwan

NRO ^ | December 18, 2003, 8:51 a.m. | Ross H. Munro

[tallhappy]

Yes, I won. You have no argument or basis for your contentions.

If you cannot be intellectually honest it is hard to discuss or argue.

Bottom line. Bush undercut his own Doctrine by teaming up with a despotic regiem against a free people and their freely elected government. We went against an issue that in other contexts is our highest principle.

Bush could not have encouraged and buoyed the Chinese communists more. That is not what needs to be done in this world.

[squidly]

I don't know why I'm continuing this, but when you stated that Dubya told the ChiComs it was all right for them to attack, you flatly lied. We obviously can't continue this discussion.

[tallhappy]

You can call me a liar but I'm not.

How do you think I am lying. Interesting how you resort to this sort of tactic so fast.

[tallhappy]

Dubya indeed told them that he agreed with them that Chen was doing something provocative enough to attack.

If he didn't say that then he needn't have said anything and this wouldn't be an issue.

That's what is so galling. Bush agreeed with the ChiComs that democratic choices are "provocation" worthy of attack.

[self_evident]

Your assertion that Bush has somehow given China the green light for an attack on Taiwan is idiotic. But suppose it is true. The question is then more pointed:

Why has the president MOST supportive of Taiwan in recent memory given China the green light to attack Taiwan?

[tallhappy]

Your use of the term "green light" is the only one I've seen here.

What Bush did is inherent in his statement. If he did not agree with the communists that Taiwan Taiwan and specifically Chen Shui-bian were not engaging in behavior meriting attack then why did he make any statement at all?

Why has the president MOST supportive of Taiwan in recent memory given China the green light to attack Taiwan?

I don't know. He followed bad advice, clearly. This is an approach or policy that's been around a while now. It first cropped up during the Clinton administration. It was developed by a bi-partisan group, many at Kennedy School in concert with Beijing. Joseph Nye wrote the first op-eds about it in the late 90's. People in Bush's administration have always subscribed to it and have always pressures Bush on this.

Clinton's administration followed the same pattern, except he waited until his second term to do it.

[Filibuster_60]

Your arguments are totally incoherent. On other threads you claim that the Chinese threats are "ludicrous" and we shouldn't take them seriously at all. You've hinted that China won't dare attack even if American blood were not on the line in Taiwan's defense. Now however, you're telling us Taiwan is being fed to the dragon's mouth simply since Bush has made a statement you've totally blown out of proportion.

The fundamental facts can't change. Taiwan is only 100 miles away from a massive, hostile & increasingly well-armed neighbor. Its main protector is merely 6,000 miles away, its military currently stretched thin by security commitments worldwide. Now is not an opportune time for Taiwan to rely on US protection - and you've essentially admitted on this thread that US protection is vital to Taiwan's survival, completely reversing your previous claims about China's impotence.