I can’t stand Kerry or Bush. They’re both born into American aristocracy and money, and have no interest in changing the status quo, nor would they ever want to change their legacy of entitlements. (Why the hell does America nominate such assholes?)
At this point I’m in leaning toward what I’m seeing as the lesser of two evils: Kerry. I find Bush’ foreign policy and domestic bungling too much for another vote. I see Kerry as better on domestic issues and on dealing with the Middle East. But the big issue stopping me for voting for Kerry is his position on Taiwan. He’s shown himself to be a complete weenie on this issue.
So for all you Kerry supporters: how do you deal with Kerry’s stance on Taiwan?
P.S.–I tried out this topic at the forum of the John Kerry website and got quickly edited and marginalized by his moderators. Anyone who thinks the John Kerry website is a mechanism of open debate will quickly find out what a heavy hand they use to quash dissent.
Taiwan is too important of an issue for me to ever vote for Kerry. I was once a democrat, but that was before I relocated to Taiwan for the long term. President Bush is much more a friend of Taiwan than Clinton, Gore or Kerry ever will be.
Besides this issue, I agree, neither of the two are that great.
Kerry’s foreign policy position can be summed up as "gee, I dunno what the fck I’ll do, but the French will like it!" He hasn’t made one specific statement yet, as far as anyone can figure – he’s “nuanced” and “subtle” and doesn’t have a fcking clue.
Why would you vote for that?? You don’t even know what you’re voting for. Hell, he doesn’t even know what he’s going to push for.
MaPoSquid: Bush’s foreign policy position can be summed up as: “Gee, I have no idea what I’m doing, but Dick tells me that it’s good for our oil friends at Halliburton and the Saudi Arabiacans and that they’ll like it!” He hasn’t made one coherent rational statement yet, and as far as anyone can figure, he’s seeing the world in “black and white” which means he’s doing about as well as my slobbering dog.
Why would anyone vote for a chickenhawk whose only contribution as president is to ensure that nobody ever again thinks of the National Guard as the sort of safe haven it was for him during the Vietnam War.
Your photo of Bush looking at the corn is him trying to figure out what it is.
Hobart, don’t kid yourself that Taiwan is even a teensy bit safer because of Bush. Half the U.S. combat troops are stuck in the middle of Iraq for the next few years, which means any commitment of any remaining U.S. forces (naval, air, etc.) bears much greater risks than it had previously. You can bet our now-greatly limited resources will force us to keep considerable war assets ready to watch out for South Korea, a nation that the U.S. actually has official relations with. Bush may have made some initial statements (e.g., “whatever it takes” and “Republic of Taiwan”) that his staff immediately backtracked on as soon as they realized he’d misspoke. The only thing he might actually come through on are a bunch of weapons packages that will be delivered in time for the PRC to take delivery.
Although educated Americans have some appreciation for Taiwan’s democracy, the majority of geographically illiterate citizens mix this place up with Thailand. In the context of the current Iraq quagmire, the majority of Americans have no stomach for purely “optional” wars (i.e., without the direct survival of the United States involved), much less those that are more than likely to be caused by the DPP blundering into a poorly timed and misjudged declaration of independence. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s youth flock to websites on how to avoid serving compulsory military duty… where’s the patriotism there? Taiwanese have to give a crap about their country and their democracy before they can rightfully expect anybody else to give their lives for it.
As with so many of Bush’s promises, just wait and see – the list of broken promises and lies gets longer and longer, and you’ll eventually learn that the smell of Bushit only gets worse when you’ve believed it.
Mafanren: Actually, I think you have been reading too much international news and not enough Taiwan news.
Under President Bush’s watch the US military has recently moved two nuclear powered submarines to Guam and a third is on the way. They are also shifting more carrier groups to the Pacific and are relocating other air and naval forces to Guam to support those already in Okinawa. As we speak the US Armed forces is engaged in Summer Pulse which shows how it can project its military might into every corner of the globe with swift resolve. All of this as they wind down from their operations in Iraq that are still going on. A Chinese military person was recently quoted as saying they have plans to deal with Taiwan’s military and one US carrier group, but not more than one. They US I think has more than one nearby already and moving others to the Pacific.
Meanwhile, Kerry won’t even reaffirm the Taiwan Relations Act and thinks Taiwan would be suited well by the One Country, Two Systems they have in HK. And Kerry is supposedly on the Commitee for East Asian Affairs. What a moron. I guess he is just there for the bribes (political contributions) which he has been documented as receiving from confirmed Communist spys and he has PRIVATE dinners with Jiang Zemin in his home!
Hey Muofangren, as a long timer in Taiwan, Kerry would never get my vote!
Hobart, you still haven’t addressed anything about the willingness of Americans to support an open war with China: 1) after the bloodletting in Iraq and 2) now that the Chen administration has been pushing for a declaration of independence that is wholly unnecessary at this point. Furthermore, you have not addressed the quite-likely manipulation of the United States “protection” that is going on here. Americans lives should not be poker chips for the DPP to throw about.
Taiwan is, de facto, independent. It enjoys many democratic freedoms and autonomy. It does not have official relations with the rest of its major trading partners, although all of those partners have “unofficial” embassies that relatively easily and efficiently diplomatic and trade issues. A unilateral Taiwanese declaration of independence makes no sense at this time, particularly as the most likely result will be that Taiwan will be re-absorbed into the PRC with a loss of the freedoms we love about this place.
U.S. backing for Taiwan is to protect the status quo, not to serve as the backup for a change in the status quo.
Your “point” about Kerry saying that China “does not have a communist government” is worthless – put in context, Kerry makes a valid point that most of these governments are “communist” in name only, that these places had embraced non-socialist values. Any look at the progression of amendments to China’s 1982 constitution would make that de-communizing, de-socialisming clear to you. That doesn’t mean these countries aren’t autocratic and often nasty to their own people, but Kerry is not the only person who can see that China, Vietnam, and Laos can’t keep up the communist facade anymore. North Korea still tries to, but look how screwed up their economy is. Despite heavy sanctions, even Cuba has moved on to tourism and the mystique of their cigars to keep barely afloat.
Since you provided no links, I’ll presume that you were selectively taking information from the Triplett opinion piece in the Washington Times, a newspaper run as a Republican mouthpiece by the openly partisan Rev. Moon.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence.
{SNIP}
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company [/quote]
Isieh – Do you think the protestors will be sent into the same sort of indefinite detention as the Arab-Americans have been sent? No lawyers, no rights, no contact with family, etc.??
I have posted a link too showing that the US is moving a whole aircraft carrier group to North Asia. It was freed up by no longer needing to contain Saddam or protect the Persian Gulf. This has changed since Iraq was taken out. While we may have more army forces there, the naval and air force groups have been removed to a great extent, thus freeing them up to fight North Korea and protect Taiwan from China. But then MFGR does not admit his error here but goes on to launch an attack about whether we should be protecting Taiwnan at all, and whether Americans would be willing to sacrifice the blood in some nonexistent attack that hypothetically may take place.
MFGR asserted that Iraq was keeping valuable forces away from other areas where they are needed. Both Hobart and myself have asserted that in fact key aircraft and naval resources have in fact been relocated to North Asia and the reason that they were able to do so was because we took out Saddam. Therefore, the assertion by MFGR has been proved wrong. And once again he moves on to yet another new area of attack.
MFGR:
Can you prove or link to a site that shows that these redeployments are not taking place?
Fred, it doesn’t particularly matter whether the U.S. has moved a carrier group into the region. It won’t get used in the defense of Taiwan, so what is the point?
Now, please show me where the United States has pledged itself to use its military to support a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan… look very closely through the news of the past couple of months and you might just find an article or two about Bush’s warnings to Taiwan. To make it simple, I will use an article from some typical Republican mouthpieces, such as the (Moonie-run) Washington Times and the (Roger Ailes-run) Fox News:
After speaking specifically on the issue of Taiwan independence, the best Taiwan can hope for us that an anonymous Bush official gives them a little sop. We’ll be there if China militarily attacks, all right… the U.S. will be there to watch and evaluate the quality of China’s weapons and tactics while they tear the island apart.
You made an assertion that Bush’s involvement in Iraq was keeping needed forces away from more important theaters like North Korea. We have shown that not only is this not true but going into Iraq has freed up three nuclear submarines and a whole aircraft carrier group as well as other much needed air and naval resources. These would be key to any conflict with North Korea or China over Taiwan and not army forces. We challenged your assertion. You lost. Why should we now switch the subject and talk about Taiwan independence or whether or not Americans would be willing to shed blood over Taiwan? You lose yet again.
How do you know it won’t be used to defend Taiwan? Prove it. Besides your initial claim was that because of Iraq, we would not have these resources available. You are wrong.
Who said anything about a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan. We are answering your assertion that because of Iraq, the needed naval and air resources are not available. You are again WRONG.
Fred, you’re being so silly now… prove that any of these shadowy movements by any carrier group are going to be used to defend Taiwan. Use facts, not mushy things you Republicans normally rely upon. Pony up, my boy…
Regarding a potential declaration of independence, it is so funny that you pretend never to have heard of such a thing being part of the larger atmosphere of current Taiwan-China relations! What might Taiwan have to defend against? A unilteral and unprovoked attack by China?? China has been quite clear that they do not plan to use any military options unless Taiwan makes a unilateral declaration. Try again and do better next time!
Regarding our commitments within the region, how on earth do you know Taiwan (a place with which the United States does not even have official relations) would be ahead of South Korea and Japan in terms of U.S. security priorities?? Please provide specifics and actual facts instead of your usual slobbery drivel… we’re all waiting for a teensy bit of substance from you.
[quote]Hobart, you still haven’t addressed anything about the willingness of Americans to support an open war with China: 1) after the bloodletting in Iraq and 2) now that the Chen administration has been pushing for a declaration of independence that is wholly unnecessary at this point. Furthermore, you have not addressed the quite-likely manipulation of the United States “protection” that is going on here. Americans lives should not be poker chips for the DPP to throw about[/quote].
These are the original quotes. You made an assertion that the US was too involved in Iraq to free up forces for something more important such as North Korea. We proved you WRONG.
Now, you ignore this and ask me to prove whether or not these forces will be used for Taiwan and I have to prove that we will use them for Taiwan? Why? Because you lost the first argument and now you want to shift to the second? Did anyone say anything like this? No. We disagreed with your assertion that the US had forces trapped in Iraq that could not be used when needed elsewhere. These could be used in North Korea; they could be used in the Taiwan Strait. We could use them somewhere else, but your assertion that Iraq was preventing us from doing so is as so much of your statements are WRONG. Go back to the original argument and prove that the aircraft carrier is not being redeployed from the Persian Gulf to the North Asian region or that the three nuclear subs are not being sent to Guam. GOTCHA!
Bush looking at the PRC as Black and Taiwan as White is far better than Kerry looking at both as gray.[/quote]
well you never know… having Kerry as president may result in a peaceful solution to the cross states issue albeit to China’s favor
Taiwan realises Kerry is grey and will not go against China if push comes to shove
China knows that Taiwan knows this and threatens Taiwan that if they don’t surrender they will launch an attack
Taiwan surrenders under some conditions to China
Fred, you proved me wrong? An aircraft carrier group is enough to take on the entirety of China? Please give us a few facts, please. I want to see you explain this one. One full half of U.S. combat capabilities have been tied up in Iraq, so please explain whether the United States is capable of:
a) keeping its own national security and other national security commitments in balance, able to commit the rest of its military for a war against China (use facts to support this…)
b) sending U.S. military personnel into another “optional” war against the Chinese that would be supportable by the American people at home.
Freeing up some navy vessels is not the same as being willing to commit them to a second non-essential war. Hobart said Bush would protect Taiwan and Kerry wouldn’t. Well, commitment of troops to Iraq has sapped our military strength (putting half of our combat troops in a desert far from any real enemy) and made it politically impossible for yet another war. As a practical matter, Bush has tied his own hands and cannot defend Taiwan.
Where did I say that an aircraft carrier group was enough to take on China? I challenged MFGR’s assertion that the US had its resources bogged down in Iraq. Clearly if we are able to now free up an aircraft carrier group and three nuclear subs, taking out Saddam did have benefits. Now, given that we have more troops locked up in Iraq, you have to ask yourself, which is more useful to protecting South Korea and Taiwan, military troops or air and naval resources?
Also, given that we are now pulling troops out of Germany and Europe along with South Korea and Japan, how exactly does this gel with the fact that such forces are needed to maintain a security footprint? Given that our very reason for pulling our troops out of South Korea is to stop them being sitting ducks proves your assertion that more military troops on the ground are needed how exactly?
So our troops in South Korea are just “sitting ducks”? Please explain how many of our troops in South Korea are currently getting shot by North Koreans. What about our troops being killed at a rate of about 2 a day in Iraq? I guess you would approve getting our military out of Iraq. Even smarter would have been to oppose putting our troops into Iraq, but I hate to pat myself on the back…
Please explain how the South Korean troops are sitting ducks and do use facts… your posts have lately been berift of them. Links, please…