And you are a bald faced liar. I never said nor intimated that, and you know it. We have on the books the TRA (Taiwan Relations Act) which stipultates "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." SOURCE
I really don't see how protecting our borders from illegals is isolationism.
Protecting ourselves from illegal immigration is not isolationist. My comment was about your non sequitur about us policing the world. This is about relations between two nations, not the world.
Can you read?
Hmmmm. You first brought up the idea that China might attack Taiwan. To which I replied "Can we be the protectors of the world? Shouldn't we start at home?"
Since then you have talked about protecting Taiwan while I, said that we should protect our borders first. In no post to me did you agree to that. From that I inferred that you were more interested in honoring the agreement we have with Taiwan then agreeing with me that we should (per the Constitution) demand that our Federal Govt. protect our borders.
My comment was about your non sequitur about us policing the world.
I did not say police but rather protect. There is quite a difference.
In a previous post there was a list of 135 countries around the world that we have troops. They are protecting interests of ours and foreign countries.
That's an isolationist argument which I reject outright.
When you think of your own home do you think about how well protected your neighbors home's are first and then go on to provide protection to your home? Clearly not. Then why would it be isolationist to protect our country in order to provide support for the protections we extend around the world? There is no logic to your conclusion that protecting our country first before Taiwan, or any other country for that matter, is isolationist.
Can you read?
Can you keep your arguments straight?