Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are an extremist who only sees the two farthest points of a situation and ignores the vasts amount of gray in between then yes. But most sane rational people do not see the world in absolutes.
If you are an extremist who only sees the two farthest points of a situation and ignores the vasts amount of gray in between then yes. But most sane rational people do not see the world in absolutes.
In this case I would suggest that Obama request nicely that China dismantle the islands and consent to recognition of Taiwan's administration. If they don't concede all bets are off.
In this case I would suggest that Obama request nicely that China dismantle the islands and consent to recognition of Taiwan's administration. If they don't concede all bets are off.
And why should China rescind their policy towards Taiwan? A policy that they established decades ago? A policy in which we and so many other countries have had no problem honoring?
And why should China rescind their policy towards Taiwan? A policy that they established decades ago? A policy in which we and so many other countries have had no problem honoring?
The Taiwanese want "self-determination." Does that slogan apply only to darlings of the left trying to destabilize, obliterate or "liberate" Western countries or parts of them, such as Quebec or South Ossetia?
The Taiwanese want "self-determination." Does that slogan apply only to darlings of the left trying to destabilize, obliterate or "liberate" Western countries or parts of them, such as Quebec or South Ossetia?
Taiwan has been considered part of China for hundreds of years. Its sort of like Florida saying its a country of its own and China rushing in and telling the US government they will resist if we try to put down the rebellion in Florida.
The Taiwanese want "self-determination." Does that slogan apply only to darlings of the left trying to destabilize, obliterate or "liberate" Western countries or parts of them, such as Quebec or South Ossetia?
I'm having a hard time believing you aren't Conservative.
Don't bring the "left" into this discussion, especially when we have just elected a President who supposed to be committed to a policy of non-intervention.
Neither the right or left have seriously cared about the One China Policy up to this point. This is a convenient and flimsy excuse for those who are itching for a fight.
You know, given that the Cold War ended without the US and USSR exchanging gunfire in the ruins of Western Europe or shots being fired lobbing nukes over the North Pole, I'm not prone to second-guessing the strategy pursued from Harry Truman onward.
Remember, the Soviets were not a nuclear power back then, only we were. Had we followed Patton's advice, we could have neutered the Soviets right then and there, and never had a cold war to begin with.
Back at the height of the Cold War -- and I'm old enough (b. 1949 - to a family who took an interest in statecraft) to remember the real thing, I would have sided with the OP; now, I'm not so sure, but hindsight is always 20/20.
If we were to have taken a more proactive stance, it would have to have been done early -- perhaps a "decapitation strike" with Josef Stalin, and as many as possible of the "old Bolsheviks" as the only real target. But I doubt that the Soviet citizenry would have risen up, even if our intentions were made clear from the start. And attempts to organize a land-based strike in Eastern Europe would have been suicidal.
It's also important to recognize that the Soviets, and their Peacenik allies on both sides of the Atlantic did not give up easily; as late as 1986, the European disarmament movement and its allies among the American Left, as evidenced by the film The Day After, were trying to convince us that the USSR posed no threat. It was not until Ronald Reagan got his military build-up that glasnost and perestroika became the words of the day.
And we will never learn the extent to which American resolve -- as demonstrated in Korea, in Vietnam, and a dozen smaller theaters, dissuaded Soviet adventurism. To those still with us who participated, as well as to those who gave all, we can never express sufficient thanks.
The good guys finally won -- but it was not by accident.
How you managed to convince yourself that The Day After conveyed the message that the USSR 'posed no threat' is beyond me. The plot of the film includes an aggressive Soviet military build-up in Eastern Europe, a Soviet blockade of Berlin, Soviet first-use of nuclear weapons, and the Soviets being the first party to escalate the nuclear exchange to the territory of the other country (the U.S. mainland).
It's funny that you praise President Reagan for seeing through this (again, I'm not sure what there was to 'see through' a film that depicts the USSR as the aggressor), considering how moved Reagan was by the film, as evidenced by his own journal: “Columbus Day. In the morning at Camp D. I ran the tape of the movie ABC is running Nov. 20. It’s called THE DAY AFTER in which Lawrence, Kansas is wiped out in a nuclear war with Russia. It is powerfully done, all $7 million worth. It’s very effective and left me greatly depressed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Remember, the Soviets were not a nuclear power back then, only we were. Had we followed Patton's advice, we could have neutered the Soviets right then and there, and never had a cold war to begin with.
This is delusional.
The war in Europe ended in early May. We were still over two months from testing a nuclear device, and as far as we knew we would need every nuke we could make for at least the next year taking down Japan. We were relying in the Soviets to respect the division of European spheres on influence, and to attack Japan (they agreed at Yalta to do so within 90 days of the defeat of Germany, and they did so) as part of the effort to defeat Japan. Meanwhile, American forces were immediately being scaled down in Europe and redeployed to the Pacific in anticipation of the bloody end to the war in that theater. Had this redeployment not taken place, there is no way the Soviets would have kept to their agreement to hit Japan, which certainly played a role in Japan's August capitulation. They'd have seen the attack coming a mile away, and were in a position to pre-empt it. And if the Japanese and seen the Western Allies idiotically mire themselves in a conflict with their erstwhile Soviet ally, there is no way they would have surrendered without being invaded. Meanwhile, we'd be stuck fighting the Red Army for months without nuclear weapons. And Washington would somehow have to figure out a way to explain to the incredulous American public why, with the war over in Europe, we'd decided to restart a new one there against one of our allies!
Patton was brilliant at offensive warfare. He was clueless as to the concept of coalition warfare. Citing him on foreign policy is laughable.
Last edited by Unsettomati; 01-15-2017 at 08:22 AM..
Tact and diplomacy is what i would use to avoid the potential death of billions.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Asimov.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
