You need to recheck your facts. JFK did not invade Cuba. He encouraged some brave cubans to try to retake their country, promised them air support, then abandoned them on the beach to be chopped up. Nixon's "cut and run" was purely the product of a democrat congress that was determined to see a communist victory and hang the loss on nixon. And last time I looked, taiwan was not part of china.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Drudge Exposes Bogus Site That Outed Foley
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
You need to recheck your facts. JFK did not invade Cuba. He encouraged some brave cubans to try to retake their country, promised them air support, then abandoned them on the beach to be chopped up. Nixon's "cut and run" was purely the product of a democrat congress that was determined to see a communist victory and hang the loss on nixon. And last time I looked, taiwan was not part of china.
Captain, "redeployment" IS cutting and running. How is it not? American troops leave....to where? Point is, they're gone from Iraq before, as the Dems are more than happy to point out, the Iraqis are capable of handling the security situation themselves.Quote from CaptainObvious:
Some Democrats, not all, and I don't think the general idea is to close Gitmo as much as it is to regulate it. Cut and run is the biggest misrepresentation. While I don't agree with redeployment, that in and of itself is not cutting and running. The point I'm trying to make is the Republican party has done an excellent job of lumping the enitre Democratic party into one big ball of loonie lefties. I'll give them credit for the political manuver, but it just isn't true. In the end that kind of broad generalization hurts us all, Republican and Democrat.
And maybe I've only been hearing from the moonbats, but the cries certainly seem to be to close Gitmo. If you could point me to reasonable Dems who are saying otherwise, I'd appreciate it.
Moonbat revisionism.Quote from james_bond_3rd:
I remember back in the old days the Republicans appeal was anti-communism, and the Democrats were always accused of being communist sympathizers.
But look at their actions. Kennedy invaded Cuba (and failed), Johnson escalated the Vietnam war (and failed). Nixon cut and run from Vietnam, and sold out Taiwan to Red China!
"Professor," PLEASE tell us you do not "teach" history at whatever institution of "higher learning" you are supposedly employed at.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
You need to recheck your facts. JFK did not invade Cuba. He encouraged some brave cubans to try to retake their country, promised them air support, then abandoned them on the beach to be chopped up. Nixon's "cut and run" was purely the product of a democrat congress that was determined to see a communist victory and hang the loss on nixon. And last time I looked, taiwan was not part of china.
So Kissinger was negotiating with the North Vietnam on behalf of the Congress? Get real!
The official US position since Nixon has been that Taiwan is part of China. That's why Taiwan was booted out of the UN, and many other world organizations.
Imagine having Taiwan, instead of Red China, as a permenant member of the Security Council...
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
You need to recheck your facts. JFK did not invade Cuba. He encouraged some brave cubans to try to retake their country, promised them air support, then abandoned them on the beach to be chopped up. Nixon's "cut and run" was purely the product of a democrat congress that was determined to see a communist victory and hang the loss on nixon. And last time I looked, taiwan was not part of china.
Here is an excerpt from the 1972 Republican Platform:
The Republicans then seemed to eager to claim credit for cut and run from Vietnam.We have moved far toward peace: withdrawal of our fighting men from Vietnam, constructive new relationships with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, the nuclear arms race checked, the Mid-East crisis dampened, our alliances revitalized.
......
In Vietnam, too, our new policies have been dramatically effective.
In the 1960's, our nation was plunged into another major warâfor the fourth time in this century, the third time in a single generation.
More than a half-million Americans were fighting in Vietnam in January 1969. Fatalities reached 562 in a single week. There was no plan for bringing Americans home; no hope for an end of the war.
In four years, we have marched toward peace and away from war. Our forces in Vietnam have been, cut by 93 per cent. No longer do we have a single ground combat unit there. Casualties are down by 95 per cent. Our young draftees are no longer sent there without their consent.
Quote from Artie21:
Hapaboy says this will just encourage those who want to destroy us. Bwaaaa,
what a lame dick.
"Don't denounce my party, cuz if you do, the terrorists'll get us. Dog gonit. Gubment's got to have a free hand."
The problem, Hapaboy, is that free hand is down your nephew's pants.
Oh wait, I am so sorry, I didn't understand the depth of your ideological and existential purity.
Lol, Zing.
Hap probably won't respond, but if he does, I wonder if he could sketch out any remotely plausible scenario in which the terrorists 'destroy America' because of American disunity? (Note to hap: you'd have to show how under those circumstances unity, itself, could save America.)
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
So Kissinger was negotiating with the North Vietnam on behalf of the Congress? Get real!
The official US position since Nixon has been that Taiwan is part of China. That's why Taiwan was booted out of the UN, and many other world organizations.
Imagine having Taiwan, instead of Red China, as a permenant member of the Security Council...
Scary. You can revise history, but you can't change it. I suggest you go read Kissinger's book. The Democrats pulled the rug out from under Nixon, cut off money for bombing, etc. Kissinger had nothing to negotiate with and the north Vietnamese knew it. They had violated the peace accord within months and there was nothing we could do about it. We abandoned brave people who stood with us to death in Hanoi's concentration camps.
As for Taiwan, there are a set of principles that define our position. "Taiwan is part of China" is not one of them. If it were, why would we be constantly sparring with the Chinese over it? What Nixon did was open up our relations with mainland China, which had been on ice since the Korean War. You may think that was a mistake, but most people would disagree.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Scary. You can revise history, but you can't change it. I suggest you go read Kissinger's book. The Democrats pulled the rug out from under Nixon, cut off money for bombing, etc. Kissinger had nothing to negotiate with and the north Vietnamese knew it. They had violated the peace accord within months and there was nothing we could do about it. We abandoned brave people who stood with us to death in Hanoi's concentration camps.
As for Taiwan, there are a set of principles that define our position. "Taiwan is part of China" is not one of them. If it were, why would we be constantly sparring with the Chinese over it? What Nixon did was open up our relations with mainland China, which had been on ice since the Korean War. You may think that was a mistake, but most people would disagree.
Who said it was a mistake?
Here is the original text in the Shanghai Communique (emphasis mine):
Although quoted out of context it gives some wiggle room (we "acknowledged" but didn't endorse). But reading the whole text it was a clear acceptance of the one-China policy. Furthermore, this policy was clearly reflected by our action to break the diplomatic relation with Taiwan in 1979 (I know that was Carter but he was just finishing off what Nixon started):The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.
We were sparing over Taiwan to show the right wing nuts that we haven't abandoned them. We have given up on the legal basis for protecting Taiwan more than 30 years ago.The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.
As for Vietnam, go back and read the 1972 Republican platform. If it were all Democrat's fault, why were the Republicans so eager to claim credit for it?
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Who said it was a mistake?
Here is the original text in the Shanghai Communique (emphasis mine):
Although quoted out of context it gives some wiggle room (we "acknowledged" but didn't endorse). But reading the whole text it was a clear acceptance of the one-China policy. Furthermore, this policy was clearly reflected by our action to break the diplomatic relation with Taiwan in 1979 (I know that was Carter but he was just finishing off what Nixon started):
We were sparing over Taiwan to show the right wing nuts that we haven't abandoned them. We have given up on the legal basis for protecting Taiwan more than 30 years ago.
As for Vietnam, go back and read the 1972 Republican platform. If it were all Democrat's fault, why were the Republicans so eager to claim credit for it?
The original Communique indicate only that we accepted that China took that position, not that we took it. Similarly, we accepted that the communists were the government of China, to abandon the position of Chang Kai-sek's followers that they were the legitimate government of mainland China. While we pay lip service to the "One China" policy, that does not mean we consider Taiwan to be currently part of China. That is for negotiations between the parties to decide.
You are correct that Carter sold out the Taiwanese totally when he broke relations with them. It was one of the many shameful actions he took around the world, such as handing Iran over to the islamists radicals, giving away the Panama Canal and inviting the Russians to piss all over us.
As for the current US position on Taiwan, it is muddled and nuanced to be sure, but we do not accept use of force for reunification.
*************************************
Overview of U.S. Policy Toward Taiwan
James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Testimony at a hearing on Taiwan, House International Relations Committee
Washington, DC
April 21, 2004
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you and the other members of the Committee today. I welcome the opportunity to provide an overview of U.S. policy toward Taiwan, as well as the Administrationâs assessment of relations across the Taiwan Strait, the current situation in Taiwan, and the challenges that lie ahead.
This month we mark the 25th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA, along with the three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués and our one China policy, form the foundation for the complex political and security interplay among China, Taiwan, and the United States.
Looking back over the past three decades, I think we can congratulate ourselves on crafting a policy that has been THE key to maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific while helping to ensure Taiwan's prosperity and security. Without denying the challenges and difficulties that remain, I can confidently report that because of the leadership of seven U.S. Presidents and active participation of the Congress, our relations with both China and Taiwan -- economic, political, cultural, and social -- are far closer and deeper than most would have ever predicted.
Equally important, our policy and the TRA have made vital contributions to easing tensions between Taiwan and the P.R.C. and creating the environment in which cross-Strait people-to-people exchanges and cross-Strait trade are flourishing and creating, we hope, the necessary conditions for peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences.
Core Principles
It is useful to reiterate the core principles of our policy:
The United States remains committed to our one China policy based on the three Joint Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act;
The U.S. does not support independence for Taiwan or unilateral moves that would change the status quo as we define it;
For Beijing, this means no use of force or threat to use force against Taiwan. For Taipei, it means exercising prudence in managing all aspects of cross-Strait relations. For both sides, it means no statements or actions that would unilaterally alter Taiwanâs status;
The U.S. will continue the sale of appropriate defensive military equipment to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act; and
Viewing any use of force against Taiwan with grave concern, we will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan.
Our foremost concern is maintaining peace and stability in order to advance U.S. interests, spare the region the dangers of war, safeguard Taiwan's democracy, and promote Chinaâs constructive integration into the global community as well as the spread of personal freedom in China. Because the possibility for the United States to become involved in a cross-Strait conflict is very real, the President knows that American lives are potentially at risk. Our one-China policy reflects our abiding commitment to preserve peace in the Taiwan Strait so long as there are irreconcilable differences.
........ .
I agree with your point that our Taiwan policy has so far been a success (if that's the point that you're making).
However, my original point was that the step Nixon took to make up with the communist China which effectively sold out Taiwan (booting them out of the UN, breaking diplomatic relation - don't tell me that Nixon didn't see it coming), was not consistent with his earlier anti-communist rhetoric.
If not for Watergate, I would consider Nixon as one of the great presidents, simply for the fact that he did the right thing and didn't stick to his anti-communist ideology.
On the opposite side, I think the Bay of Pigs was a mistake, and so was Johnson's Vietnam policy.
However, my original point was that the step Nixon took to make up with the communist China which effectively sold out Taiwan (booting them out of the UN, breaking diplomatic relation - don't tell me that Nixon didn't see it coming), was not consistent with his earlier anti-communist rhetoric.
If not for Watergate, I would consider Nixon as one of the great presidents, simply for the fact that he did the right thing and didn't stick to his anti-communist ideology.
On the opposite side, I think the Bay of Pigs was a mistake, and so was Johnson's Vietnam policy.