[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
But you can’t deny that a signed treaty constitutes an ethical commitment that might provide a moral spur for intervention measures. [/quote]What treaty? The TRA is not a treaty. It is US domestic law, and if you read it carefully you’ll discover that the President is given a good deal of leeway in deciding how to implement it.
Wait, back up, this is where I got into this:
[quote][quote]
I don’t know what alternate reality you’re living in, but in this one, the Bush Administration, and George W. Bush in specific, is the entity that stated that the U.S. would defend Taiwan. This happened pre-Sept 11th and was the source of much consternation among the chattering classes.[/quote]
In the reality I live in, the Bush Administration did not say it would defend Taiwan. So it is true that you DO live in an alternate reality.[/quote]
Honestly, I wouldn’t talk for half a second about what the TRA obligates us to do. Now if you want to that’s fine but it’s clearly a subordinate issue to whether we will do anything or not.
He did not. he was asked a question and he answered it. In terminology that he never used again, which is surprising if he thought it was so amazing! Of course it was no change of policy. In my opinion, it was just an undiplomatic answer that wasn’t repeated and which showed how Bush feels about it.
[quote] It was a simple expression of will.[quote]
No, it was not. That was point. It was a fine bit of weaseling, not will. [/quote][/quote]
Suffice it to say I don’t agree with you, enough is enough.
[quote]
And this president has shown himself more than able to translate will into action.
[quote]
Nonsense. This President has shown, however, that he can get people to believe that statement is true. [/quote][/quote]
But here I have to say something 
That is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a while. With practically the entire world against him, Bush goes ahead and does what his own father and Clinton dared not do. Like it or not, if that’s not action, what in the name of God is?
There was nothing “daring” about it – see how you’ve sucked up his propaganda? The President went ahead and rewarded his cronies with fat contracts, and extended the US reach across the oil and gas pipeline nexus in central asia, just as the US had been doing for quite some time – under the Clinton Administration, for example. At the same time, as part of that long-term geopolitical strategy, the President has sucked up to China, since the pipelines have to cross Xinjiang, the US has been quiet on China’s activities there. There was nothing daring or resolute about it, since Iraq posed no threat to the United States. The President’s “resolve” is exactly the same as that of a mugger.
[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Vorkosigan”]
But you can’t deny that a signed treaty constitutes an ethical commitment that might provide a moral spur for intervention measures. [/quote]What treaty? The TRA is not a treaty. It is US domestic law, and if you read it carefully you’ll discover that the President is given a good deal of leeway in deciding how to implement it.[/quote]
The point holds in any case, as a treaty is the law of the land. Treaty or law, the relevant issue is that it adds moral weight to a political situation.
And I don’t know where you’ve been for the last three pages, but your last sentence is exactly what I’ve been saying. 
Vorkosigan
The topic shifted. So sue us.
There was nothing “daring” about it – see how you’ve sucked up his propaganda? The President went ahead and rewarded his cronies with fat contracts, and extended the US reach across the oil and gas pipeline nexus in central Asia, just as the US had been doing for quite some time – under the Clinton Administration, for example. At the same time, as part of that long-term geopolitical strategy, the President has sucked up to China, since the pipelines have to cross Xinjiang, the US has been quiet on China’s activities there. There was nothing daring or resolute about it, since Iraq posed no threat to the United States. The President’s “resolve” is exactly the same as that of a mugger.[/quote]
I disagree, but the reasons and motivation are irrelevent to this argument. He wanted to do it, the rest of the world was dead set against it, and he did it anyway. will translated into action.
Be careful, Vorkosigan. I know where the switch to the trap door is. 
Dalton, the fallacy in your view is that you equate ACTION with RESOLVE. Waiting patiently and working for change requires far more resolve and will then blowing lots of things up, including the budget. Any idiot can blunder into a foreign war. Real resolve is shown by not going out and blowing things up, but by patient construction of international organizations, long-term investment and trade, and long-term adherence to international norms and standards, and long-term commitment to real, democratically oriented and progressive change. You’re making the error of confusing heroism with dramatic action. Real resolve isn’t in those who die dramatically for causes, but those who live humbly for them. And on that score, Bush has no resolve at all.
Or, to swerve back to the original OP, who do you think showed more resolve, the KMT when they occupied Taiwan, instituted martial law, and harassed, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered democracy activists? Or the independence people who despite all this, worked quietly and resolutely to bring peace and democracy to this island? By your standards, we’d have to go with the KMT on that one.
Vorkosigan
Sorry, Wolf. I was a little testy this morning. Too much translation work, not enough Vorkosigan. Please accept my apologies.
Vorkosigan
You’re still on my Christmas list.
[quote=“Vorkosigan”] Waiting patiently and working for change requires far more resolve and will then blowing lots of things up, including the budget. Any idiot can blunder into a foreign war. Real resolve is shown by not going out and blowing things up, but by patient construction of international organizations, long-term investment and trade, and long-term adherence to international norms and standards, and long-term commitment to real, democratically oriented and progressive change. You’re making the error of confusing heroism with dramatic action. Real resolve isn’t in those who die dramatically for causes, but those who live humbly for them.
[/quote]
Yeah that’ll do a lot of good when the commies come swarming over…
…yes, Dalton, those international frameworks that Bush so cavalierly ignored (it is always easier to destroy than to build) would indeed do a lot of good when the commies come swarming over. But now we might not have them, will we?
Vorkosigan
…yes, Dalton, those international frameworks that Bush so cavalierly ignored (it is always easier to destroy than to build) would indeed do a lot of good when the commies come swarming over. But now we might not have them, will we?
Vorkosigan[/quote]
just which “international framework” is supposed to help taiwan anyway? the rest of the world practically spits on it.
Vork,
I understand your asides but please explain your main point.
Vork,
I understand your asides but please explain your main point.[/quote]
Yes indeedy. The “civilized” world didn’t give a rat’s ass when Saddam Hussein was filling his mass graves and torture chambers; why would they give a rat’s ass about Taiwan? Hell, the U.N. won’t even debate Taiwan, much less grant it a seat.
Bush, on the other hand, acted with force to topple the Iraqi Baathists, and I believe that he would likewise react with force if China pulled any funny shit with Taiwan.
[quote]just which “international framework” is supposed to help Taiwan anyway? the rest of the world practically spits on it.
Vork,
I understand your asides but please explain your main point.[/quote]
I meant that those international frameworks which the US has organized and Bush has driven a truck through might indeed help the US against China. My fault for not being clear. International frameworks don’t have to recognize Taiwan to be useful to it, as they remain restraints on China’s behavior. Although I admit that Europe that Europe has been China’s Compleat Whore over Taiwan, yet still perhaps the useless Europeans might actually be shamed into some kind of action on Taiwan. I confess to being an eternal optimist.
The civilized world was led by the US, which made Hussein its “strong right arm in the Middle East” when he was doing those things. Later, at least on my planet, the civilized world put sanctions and other restrictions on Hussein and Iraq. At least when they weren’t selling him chemical and biological weapons (Europe) and calling for an end to sanctions so that they could make money selling drilling equipment (Veep Cheney).
I am not sure. Bush is a bully and a coward at heart, and US, European, and Japanese companies would scream if a serious war interfered with their fantasies for wealth in China. A lot would depend on how long Taiwan could hold out. If the island appeared that it was battling doggedly against impossible odds, the US might step in, and Europeans might even say something bad about China (ok, so I am an eternal optimist). But if it folded quickly, then the case for intervention would be badly dented.
In any case, Bush wasn’t the slightest bit interested in the Ba’athists as such, but merely in securing a base for US operations against other nations in the area, and across the oil and gas pipeline networks of Asia. The Neocon facists at PNAC, had been, after all, calling for an invasion of Iraq for years for essentially those reasons. Given that the Administration wants its cronies to make the big $$ selling oil and gas to China, intervention about Taiwan might become a problem for a second Bush administration. On the other hand, he is a belligerent right-wing Christian wacko, who is offended by China, so anything is possible.
Vorkosigan
Please explain how Saddam was Bush’s right arm in the Middle East or better yet, just how exactly the US was responsible for him coming to power. This should be good.
Everyone knows Saddam, and for that matter, Pinochet, were clones developed by the NSA in the fifties. This effort was spearheard by Bushes’ grandfather, Elroy Bush.
Do you mean like the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (which also regulates airspace) to which China is a signatory? Because if you do, then this doesn’t support your contention.
Remember the US EP-3 observation plane that was rammed in the air by the Chinese jet? That US plane was legally flying through international airspace when the Chinese jet rammed it and forced it down.
Or maybe you mean conventions such as the Universal declaration of Human Rights, to which China is a signator. But that doesn’t really restratin China either, does it?
How can you even entertain in your mind the notion that Europe would be shamed to action in the event that China uses aggressive violence against Taiwan? On what grounds do you base this optimism?
name one way in which “international frameworks” has helped the security of taiwan in the last 50 years.
neo-cons in washington are the only ones who give a shit about defending taiwan. keep dreaming about your international frameworks…