Again you lie. I might have said you are misinformed, but I think you are lying intentionally. US policy is to support the status quo. US policy is for neither country to break with the status quo.
Right now, Chen and the DPP are closer to breaking the status quo than China is. And we have put Chen on notice as diplomatically as possible, at least in public, that he cannot count on us to pull his nuts out of the fire if the DPP declares independence.
No American soldier, sailor, or pilot will die for TI.
"US policy is to support the status quo. US policy is for neither country to break with the status quo."
Like a true liberal when you lose one form of the argument you change the terms you are making your argument on.
Again you display your ignorance. There is no policy protecting the diplomatic term, and the condition it is predicated on, referred to as "the status quo". That is diplomatic language for the present situation; which is what the term means. It is not the agreements or the terms of the agreements; it is simply "today".
The agreements do not pledge the United States to "keep the status quo". The "status quo" is referred to because it represents our position of neutrality over what a solution must be with the absence of military force; which is the "status quo" but any resolution or continued peaceful difference in the absence of military force, would also be in the framework we agreed on. The only condition we did NOT agree to was the use of force to resolve it.
The agreements pledge only that we neither demand nor deny the possibility of Taiwan independence; that we neither demand nor deny the possibility of reunification. It is not up to us to settle it, but however it is settled, we are pledged to the principal that we do not support the military resolution of it, we do not support mainland China dictating a settlement by force. We never have and never will.