McCain vs. Billary, or Obama--who is better for Taiwan?

I think McCain would be far better for Taiwan, and probably better for the US, too.

McCain seems to be a man of principle who does not waver from his goals. Hillary is willing to say or do anything to get back in the White House. Obama has a refreshing vision, but has far too little experience. In 8 years or so he might make a competent Pres.

As a republican, McCain would probably tend to be more pro-Taiwan.

None of 'em. Especially not insane McCain. Doesn’t he own a string of factories in China?

Since Bill sent warships to “observe” the situation here in 1992, and well understands the situation, I assume that his perspective will inform Hillary’s. On the other hand, they’d sell out their own mothers if that would gain them political points somehow…

“Bohammed” is like George W. Who knows how much he really understands?

McCain is torn between being a warhawk, and sucking up to big business. But even the most strident warhawk would surely take into account the fact that the U.S. military is way overstretched.

I don’t know the details of McCain’s finances, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t own factories in China. He appears to be a very tough straight-talker who values democracy. Hillary apparently did not learn much about foreign policy when she was in the White House as she did not have a security clearance. If she becomes Pres., Bill will become roving US ambassador and heads of state world-wide will have to lock up their women and children.

Won’t really matter. With President Ma doing his best to cozy up to Beijing, the likelihood of any confrontation between the US and China over Taiwan drops considerably.

McCain is bound to have his hand in the pie somewhere, what Republican doesn’t?

Actually, I think Bill Clinton broke all records for shamelessly fundraising. He pardoned, Marc Rich, a convicted felon in exchange for a substantial sum.

It’s not about who is better at principles (Is McCain really? I don’t think so) or who is Pro-Taiwan or who has experience.

It’s about who will understand what it takes to communicate properly with China.

Talk is cheap when it comes to China
Chicago Sun-Times (IL) - March 8, 2008
Author: Gordon G. Chang,
’ We think that one of the strongest means by which to improve transparency is the mil-to-mil relationship," said Condoleezza Rice last week in Beijing. " That has really accelerated over the last several years ofthe administration and we think that that 's really the way that you get at transparency issues." What is the cause of America’s troubled ties with the People’s Republic of China? The secretary of state implies there is insufficient understanding between the two nations and the Pentagon can lead the way in building trust on both sides of the Pacific.

As a result of this perception, the Bush administration is pushing the Defense Department to step up contact with the People’s Liberation Army, the world’s largest military. So far, Washington’s efforts are broadening the relationship with China. For instance, after meetings of American and Chinese flag officers in the port city of Qingdao, Beijing’s official media announced last Wednesday that the United States and China had tentatively agreed to conduct a joint maritime drill sometime this year. The two countries have already held search-and-rescue exercises and participated in Pakistan’s anti-terrorism drills.

Yet even more symbolic of the new Sino-American cooperation is the agreement, signed on Friday in Shanghai, to install a hotline between the two country’s militaries. The Chinese had previously announced that they had agreed to the idea, but to the continuing annoyance of Washington refused to put the “defense telephone link” in place.

In each military crisis involving China this decade Americans have expressed the opinion that communication between both sides could have averted difficulties. The belief that exchanges of words can solve problems is characteristically American. And when it comes to the Chinese, it is, unfortunately, untrue. As an initial matter, China’s central government moves slowly during crises. There are numerous civilian and military factions that must be consulted and won over before anyone can speak on behalf of the central government. In 2001, for instance, the fragile coalition that ruled China took days to decide what to say and do after a reckless Chinese fighter pilot clipped an unarmed Navy reconnaissance plane, which was forced to land on China’s Hainan island.

Since then, Chinese officials have tried to clarify and streamline their decision-making process, but recent evidence shows that not much progress has been made. In November, China denied Hong Kong port-call privileges to the Kitty Hawk strike group on the day before Thanksgiving. On the day of the denial, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told President Bush that the turndown had been the result of a “misunderstanding.” Yet a few hours later the Foreign Ministry in Beijing repudiated Yang’s characterization of events.

We may never know the backstory, but clearly Yang, the foreign minister, was not in the loop. The port call denial came after China refused refuge to two Navy minesweepers running from an approaching storm, and it came at the same time as Beijing rejected a port call for the Reuben James, a frigate, and landing rights for a regular C-17 mission to resupply the American consulate in Hong Kong. Clearly all the turndowns were the result of a deliberate policy, and, due to the sensitive nature of the matter, that policy was undoubtedly made at the highest level of the Chinese political structure. For the country’s foreign minister to have misled President Bush shows a fundamental failure of the Chinese government to execute and announce its decisions. So the issue is not whether the United States will have a communications link with an official in Beijing; it is whether there will be someone on the other end who can talk.

We fundamentally misunderstand the Chinese. Unlike us, they are not impressed by displays of friendship. Like us, they respect strength. They are ruthlessly pragmatic. By adopting an overly tolerant approach, we are merely papering over problems, thereby ensuring that new incidents will occur and that differences will widen over time.[/quote]

The GOP isn’t concerned about messing up the status-quo. They are going to leave it in place, as HK is necessary route and with China’s growing military and economy it’s best to just let things be. My 2cts.

What may not work in McCain’s favor is the lack of conservative support. Hillary is too aggressive and well, you draw a conclusion. Obama who knows, I’d be interested in seeing how China would work with a president who wouldn’t place pre-conditions on meeting with rogue countries.

If he was so principled, why, as a long time vocal critic of torture, did he back Bush’s veto on the ban of torture?

McCain has stated he “hates Gooks.” Probably thinks all Asians look alike as well.

Obama…well he grew up in Malaysia, so probably feels Chinese are Jews of the Orient. But at least he’ll be able to find Taiwan on the map without an aide assisting him.

Billary…hmm they did send the 7th fleet back in 1996 to Taiwan. But then agian he also gave the PRC their advance nuclear technology.

He grew up in Indonesia.

He only spent 4 years in Indonesia. I’d rather characterize him as having grown up in Hawaii.

He spent 3 years there. :google: :unamused:

more importantly, does obama have any recorded position or statements on china/taiwan/the strait?

He spent 3 years there. :google: :unamused:[/quote]

On page 142 of Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote, “In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school.”

Sorry for being out of touch with the new math.

Oh my Indonesia, they have even worst view of Chinese than the Malay. Not to mention his brother in law, Konrad Ng, is of Cantonese extraction…Fuget about it…Taiwan is lost…

Well, you have to admit a lot of Chinese in Indonesia supported the PKI in the 60s. Of couse, that doesn’t justify the horrible violence against Chinese in riots during the late 1990s.

Obama’s political videos remind me of Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda films. Given Michelle’s totalitarian left leanings, I think she could be Obama’s Jiang Qing :laughing: I wonder if she’s ever been to Shanghai or plans to lead any cultural revolutions should Obama come to power.

. Given Michelle’s totalitarian left leanings, I think she could be Obama’s Jiang Qing :laughing: .[/quote]

Wow that’s extreme labeling.

And Ac what does having a Chinese BIL have to do with having an opinion about TW? :loco:

. Given Michelle’s totalitarian left leanings, I think she could be Obama’s Jiang Qing :laughing: .[/quote]

Wow that’s extreme labeling.

And Ac what does having a Chinese BIL have to do with having an opinion about TW? :loco:[/quote]

Not really. Her rhetoric sounds totalitarian to me. Imagine the Founding Father’s reactions to a President who would “never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.” And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans’ freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed? Apparently apathy will be criminalized, then? Does anybody on the left side of the aisle find this rhetoric a little creepy?

If things don’t “blow up,” so to speak, I don’t see much difference in Hillary or McCain. It will probably be substantially be the same policies that have dictated relations for some time. Obama’s kind of a black box on this, but unless he really just wants to piss off China, I don’t see him changing tune from the usual song.