Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why did everyone ignore my French post on this yeasterday? It seems nuts that France would give China an apparent green light.

I just noted it as reason 144572 that France is the true enemy. But it did get me thinking about the issue and that is why the questions to the committee. I know it was a delayed reaction, but I get confused very easily.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
And your point would be . . . ?

I thought one of these guys would at least explain why it doesn't show how transparent the Country's policy decisions are. It would be a bullshit explaination, but I'd like to hear something other that "there's money to be made in China!"

Of course the clear parallel to its Iraq stance stands in the shadow, but is becoming more illuminated.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
Me.

I think you may be right. Doesn't that make you nervous? I think it is possible that they will Invade, and a conflict with China makes me uneasy. China can hit the West Coast with their ICBMs, and as a resident of the left coast that is a little unsettling.

I prefer discussing armed conflict in this forum, to having it actually come to my front doorstep.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
It will never work as a world government. It will never be given power over the sovereignity of nations. And, without some drastic restructuring, it will never amount to more than a soapbox for countries, people, and ideas that would be ignored or ridiculed elsewhere.

Bolton would be absolutely perfect as our representative in that body.

I agree with your first two sentences. It has already amounted to much more than your third sentence suggests -- though it could probably use restructuring.

Given the juxtaposition of your third and fourth sentences, are you praising Bolton or insulting him?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Fuck em. We carpet bomb a few cities, and they'll surrender.

Yes, but if they wait 20 years to do it, they'll carpet bomb right back.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
If China invaded Taiwan, who thinks that the US would respond militarily?

There'd be enough advance warning of any invasion (logistics) that they'd have to get past the Seventh Fleet. Even Bill Clinton sent the Navy into the Straits of Formosa when the Reds rattled their sabers a little too loudly last time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you may be right. Doesn't that make you nervous? I think it is possible that they will Invade, and a conflict with China makes me uneasy. China can hit the West Coast with their ICBMs, and as a resident of the left coast that is a little unsettling.

I prefer discussing armed conflict in this forum, to having it actually come to my front doorstep.

I'm assuming you meant, now, with Bush in charge. I see Bush as the kind of person who will see that we have treaty obligations to do so, and so will do so. But, it might well stop with a few big boats parked next to T, and some overflights while people talk. Then, having technically complied with the treaty, we'd move on to pure diplomacy. But, I can't see Bush just ignoring the obligation. And I bet China would be pragmatic enough to understand exactly what Bush had to do, and accept it without escalation.

So, it's cynical, but I'm more optimistic that it would turn out okay in the end (unless you live in Taiwan, of course.)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just noted it as reason 144572 that France is the true enemy. But it did get me thinking about the issue and that is why the questions to the committee. I know it was a delayed reaction, but I get confused very easily.

The French don't give a shit because they have no strategic interests at stake in East Asia (at least none since 1954). Kinda like how we didn't give a shit when the Indonesians invaded East Timor in the seventies to "re-unify" the archipelego.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Given the juxtaposition of your third and fourth sentences, are you praising Bolton or insulting him?

I'm pointing out his suitability for the job.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm assuming you meant, now, with Bush in charge. I see Bush as the kind of person who will see that we have treaty obligations to do so, and so will do so. But, it might well stop with a few big boats parked next to T, and some overflights while people talk. Then, having technically complied with the treaty, we'd move on to pure diplomacy. But, I can't see Bush just ignoring the obligation. And I bet China would be pragmatic enough to understand exactly what Bush had to do, and accept it without escalation.

So, it's cynical, but I'm more optimistic that it would turn out okay in the end (unless you live in Taiwan, of course.)

I hope you are right. However, sometimes it seems that China is more concerned about "face" and respect than stability.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If China invaded Taiwan, who thinks that the US would respond militarily?

Me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm assuming you meant, now, with Bush in charge. I see Bush as the kind of person who will see that we have treaty obligations to do so, and so will do so. But, it might well stop with a few big boats parked next to T, and some overflights while people talk. Then, having technically complied with the treaty, we'd move on to pure diplomacy. But, I can't see Bush just ignoring the obligation. And I bet China would be pragmatic enough to understand exactly what Bush had to do, and accept it without escalation.

So, it's cynical, but I'm more optimistic that it would turn out okay in the end (unless you live in Taiwan, of course.)

I think China sees itself as inevitably THE world power in 50-100 years once the economic changes kick in. I frankly don't think it will invade because it knows it can just wait it out until we couldn't stop it anyway (I'm not saying I think we'll weaken- but I believe China does).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
The French don't give a shit because they have no strategic interests at stake in East Asia (at least none since 1954). Kinda like how we didn't give a shit when the Indonesians invaded East Timor in the seventies to "re-unify" the archipelego.

Or when Hutus started slaughtering Tutsis.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm assuming you meant, now, with Bush in charge. I see Bush as the kind of person who will see that we have treaty obligations to do so, and so will do so. But, it might well stop with a few big boats parked next to T, and some overflights while people talk. Then, having technically complied with the treaty, we'd move on to pure diplomacy. But, I can't see Bush just ignoring the obligation. And I bet China would be pragmatic enough to understand exactly what Bush had to do, and accept it without escalation.

So, it's cynical, but I'm more optimistic that it would turn out okay in the end (unless you live in Taiwan, of course.)

I think China recognizes everything you say, and so is pragmatic enough not to invade in the first place. So, if China were to invade, it would be for one of two reasons, I think. (1) the pragmatism that is stopping them now has weakened or vanished, or (2) they have for some reason come to doubt the US resolve. If it's (2), then I think your outlook is right -- we respond militarily, demonstrating that their analysis was wrong, and things calm down. If it's (1), things could quickly get out of hand.

[Replaced_Texan]

Important consideration before making up your mind one way or another on the stem cell debate. (spee: bioethics blog)