Ok, but what is this in response to? I wasn't arguing that the Taiwanese would go down peacably, I was arguing that China is not likely to make any move against Taiwan, near term. Near term meaning Clinton's in this context. I don't think the mainlanders are crazy, and I don't think they have much to gain by a military move against Taiwan. As for long term, that can be pretty long for the Chinese.
And I remember Tianamen Square perfectly well, thank you. Want to blame that on Clinton too? How many years was Bush President after that? Somewhat oddly, I was in Australia at the time, where the local news had a somewhat different perspective. But George Bush was the expert on China. How long was it before James Baker was there on a next state visit? And no, I don't particularly like our China policy, but it's driven by business interests more than anything. If the moral reformationist Republicans want to go against the core constituency of the Republican party, that's fine with me, it should be an entertaining battle to watch.
"If you treat China as an enemy, China will become an enemy."
So, Ish is all concerned about the Russian sphere of influence in Yugoslavia, but everybody wants China to be the new Great Satan. I don't think that's particularly sane, but my idea of sanity is at odds with the consensus of the so-called Sanity thread. That's life. |
