Posted on 08/16/2004 5:54:18 AM PDT by OESY
...As [Lilley] explains, "It was ambiguity over whether the U.S. would defend South Korea from attack -- created when Secretary of State Dean Acheson left the Korean peninsula outside the U.S. "defense perimeter" he described in a 1950 speech -- that convinced Kim Il Sung he could act with impunity. And when Saddam Hussein in 1991 informed U.S. ambassador April Gillespie that Kuwait was in his sights, and she gave an ambiguous response, tragedy also ensued. By contrast, there was nothing ambiguous about mutual assured destruction; and it worked for decades.
Ambiguity [is] what Mr. Kerry offers on the subject of Taiwan. The entire Kerry team is on record denouncing the end of strategic ambiguity, including Mr. Kerry's chosen running mate, John Edwards, and his likely secretary of state, Senator Joseph Biden.
As for Mr. Kerry himself, no sooner had Mr. Bush uttered the words "whatever it takes" in 2001 than he rushed to make a statement on the Senate floor. The change, he warned, "has profound implications for our country." What appeared to irk the senator most was that, "without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now summarily being changed, with implications that I believe are serious."
The senator went on, "We have been deliberately vague about what the circumstances might be under which we would come to Taiwan's defense." A good policy, Mr. Kerry said, because "any situation which results in the use of force across the Taiwan Strait is unlikely to be simply black and white, as clear as can be."
Does this mean Mr. Kerry would not come to Taiwan's defense if it were attacked? ... Would this apply if Taiwan, at the other end of the world, were attacked?....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Kerry was in favor of dending Taiwan before he was against it.
Kerry would run off and leave them to fend for theirselves. I am sure that most of you have seen those ads of Kerry running around acting brave by himself. I thought a captain should never leave his ship and crew. Maybe I am wrong and he is looking for where he parked his boat.
Well, more specifically, he was in favor of defending Taiwan before the Red Chinese told him they really would attack Taiwan, so now he's against defending Taiwan.
bttt
John Kerry as a President would most certainly turn his back on Taiwan as he did on his own US troops left in Vietnam.
Make certain your Taiwanese friends and FReepers know this, if they don't already.
Taiwan is learning this. However the 3 English language dailies here are blantantly pro-Kerry, anti-GWB and anti-USA. And the expats here who vote are about 35%-40% pro GWB. That is a WAG on my part, not scientific sampling.
It is unfair to ask Mr. Kerry a yes or no question. He, along with Barbra Streisand, has evolved beyond that. They now dwell in the rarified air of Perpetual Nuance.
Kerry would run straight to the U.N. which would convene to consider a strong resolution regarding the deplorable action, which the Chinese would of course veto, at which point he would go into full dither mode and attack in the direction of the Aspen Ski slopes.
The Chinese military would release a statement saying quote Neener, neener, neener *burp* unquote
Jeez... the thought of Kerry as President makes even Beezlebubba seem like a better deal. And I never thought I would say anything that would even be remotely complimentary regarding the ex-DIRTPOTUS
Are the three English newspapers pro-Taiwan independece or pro-Republic of China (free China)? Just curious.
Well, theres the rub.
None of them are bold enough to blatantly come out with en editorial position supporting Taiwan "Independence." They dance around that like a clogger on crack. They basically have a pro-Chen Shui-Bien position while adopting a "KMT is bad" stance. However this is done while almost daily doing stories of corruption and bribery in the DPP (Chen Shui-Bien's party) and his parties contacts with his big business cronies who are making a fortune with their business dealings in PRC.
No paper would come right out with a pro-PRC stance. It would be a death sentence for the paper and the publishers and editors. Pretty much literally as well as financially.
Its a very 'Asian' thing. Politics here is like a junior high school recess yard.
All three are available on the internet for reading. Let me know if you want the links and I'll be happy to PM them to you.
Yes, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.