Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > March > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDefend Taiwan? Israel? Other nations?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Taiwan, a nation that America once promised to defend and now checks to keep fit from provoking mainland China or declaring its independence, held presidential elections over the weekend. The opposition party, led by Ma Ying-jeou, pronounced Ma ING-gee-oh, won decisively.
“Taiwan is a beacon of democracy to Asia and the world,” said President George W. Bush in congratulating Ma.”Taiwan has demonstrated the strength and vitality of its democracy.”
“It falls to Taiwan and Beijing to build the essential foundations for peace and stability by pursuing dialogue through all available means and refraining from unilateral steps that would alter the cross-Strait situation,” said Bush. “I believe the election provides a fresh opportunity for both sides to reach out and engage one another in peacefully resolving their differences.
The maintenance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the welfare of the people on Taiwan remain of profound importance to the United States. We will continue to maintain close unofficial ties with the people on Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan in accordance with our long standing one China policy, our three Joint Communiques with the People’s Republic of China, and the Taiwan Relations Act.”
Ma, who has a doctorate from Harvard and whose two daughters live in the U.S. has a difficult task in balancing relations with China. Ma wants to work with China to reduce the risk of an accidental war, with an eventual agreement to end hostilities across the Taiwan Strait.
Negotiations with mainland China, he said Sunday, will be handled through two semiofficial foundations set up in the early 1990s. Using them is like shaking hands with gloves, he said. “If you wear a white glove, it is still courteous, but it is not your actual flesh.”
Most interesting is his suggestion that China , which regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, and Taiwan, which regards itself as the Republic of China and a a sovereign nation, can find a solution that permits each to maintain a “mutual nondenial” of the other’s claim.
The pending change of governments in Taiwan and the efforts America exerts to prevent Taiwan from provoking China — Red China, as we used to call it — prompts the question: Which nations, if any, should the United States be willing to risk war to defend?
Taiwan? Once yes, now most likely not. Israel? For me, absolutely. Japan, yes. Beyond that, Great Britain, Australia, and a threat to any nation in North or South America that comes from outside the hemisphere. Europe? Probably not.
What nations would you be willing to defend at the risk of war?
Comments
By TW
March 24, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Never in his wildest dreams could bin laden have thought the US would yank its pants down and pee all over itself the way we have following 9/11.
Five years later bin laden is a movie star, making the most coveted videos in the history of the planet, and our economy combines with our diplomatic failures to make us the most vulnerable to another terror attack than we have ever been.
‘Yeah, but the worlds a better place without Saddam.’ Yeah, no kidding moron. But the answer to that would still be ‘yes’ had he killed all of our children in the process of us taking him out. The big kid question, ‘adult’ question if you like, is WAS IT WORTH IT?
Only a fool would have made this trade.
I want my soldiers back. To their families I apologize for not giving their sons and spouses and parents a commander in chief worthy of their loves one’s sacrifice.
By Joe Bland
March 24, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
Good essay today Jim, except the first sentence which I tripped all over. Fit? Should that be it? Anyway I’d fight like heck any invasion of Canada or Bermuda.
By Redneck Convert
March 24, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
Well, we need to defend ourselfs first before we worry about other countrys. We got terrists that want to come over here and take away our Freedom. That’s what Sister Dusty and other good conservatives on this blog say and I beleive it. By fighting them for the next 100 years or so in Iraq we can keep them too busy to think about coming over here and taking over our trailer parks and other places where we live.
Fighting them over there only costs about 1,000 soldiers a year and maybe 8,000 wounded. If we give them Sh*ts and the Sunnys that much time they can work things out and be just like Democrats and Republicans, where we just swiftboat the other side and make them wish they was dead instead of killing them.
I can’t hardly think of any other country we should defend. We don’t need to be using our troops and A-bombs to be defending Israel. A bunch of Jews almost as bad as Those People. And I wouldn’t spend a nickel if the Traders like France and Germany got took over by somebody. Matter of fact I still order Freedom Fries instead of French Fries. I ain’t forgetting how they didn’t stand with us when the most powerful country outside the US of A, Iraq, knocked down our buildings and kilt a bunch of Americans.
Maybe we ought to send Clinton and the President’s Daddy if somebody takes over Canada. That would be kind of close for comfort.
Anyway, I’m with jbmlaw. Just cut our taxes big-time. Who cares what happens in other countrys. If you cut our taxes we will get so much income for the guvmint we can just buy all the other countrys. And the libruls that want to take back the tax cuts will be real suprized when one day all the guvmint money comes pouring in. We may be in a little money trouble right now, but just wait till the extra tax money comes in when you cut taxes again. Sure, we ain’t seen much of it from the last tax cut, but it takes time. You got to be patient.
Have a good day everybody.
By Politics Aside
March 24, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
China. One country. Two systems. That equals The Four Cardinal Rules.
Chinese math. We lost that spy gizmo years ago, remember, when they held our air crew, and it’s plane, and it’s spy treasure? They must be flying along both of our coastlines spying openly with that equipment. Lets hope their math only allows them to get Rush Limbaugh’s sponsor-ads. Why? I know for a fact that geritol, exlax and viagra would kill a high-fibered, low fat chinaman. Rush Limbaugh would be the new george washington. Communism destroyed forever.
By OneForTheRoad
March 24, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
This country had what I believed to be good leadership immediately following 9/11/2001. I thought our leaders looked for those who were responsible for the plane hijackings and the ultimate murders of innocent people. I thought that our efforts in Afghanistan were honorable and that others around the world felt our grief and stood by us. Then, something changed. Our leaders were no longer leading. We were being taken down a new path — a path that was poorly conceived. Now we must admit our mistakes and learn from these mistakes. We have not been asked by the world to be its big brother, its mother, its baby sitter. Further, we should not be. We are, after all, just a small part of this world.
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. There are extraordinarily few nations that deserve our defense: (1) Hong Kong; (2) Singapore; (3) Ireland; (4) Australia; (5) New Zealand; (6) Canada; (7) Chile; (8) Switzerland; (9) United Kingdom; (10) Denmark; (11) Estonia; (12) Netherlands; (13) Iceland; (14) Luxembourg; (15) Finland; (16) Japan; (17) Mauritius; (18) Bahrain; (19) Belgium; (20) Barbados; (21) Cyprus; (22) Germany; (23) Bahamas; (24) Taiwan; (25) Lithuania. These are 25 of the 26 freest economies in the world. I would likely add Israel to that list, due to its unswerving willingness to offer political support of the United States, and Iraq may merit the same political consideration.
By Dennis
March 24, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten asks, “What nations would you be willing to defend at the risk of war?”
Mr. Wooten’s question is the usual type of hypocritical, neocon press question (and the day after Easter, too) designed to take America’s sins off of the minds of Americans and put them onto what someone else is doing wrong.
If charity begins at home let’s begin with our own dictators and war criminals - those who spy on Americans without warrants; who lie to get us into unwarranted wars in the Middle East; who hold American citizens in prison for years without charges; who twist the Constitution for their own purposes; those who train terrorists at Ft. Benning, Ga. and send them back into Central and South American to keep the populace in line working for low wages so that American corporations can reap huge profits; those who knowingly pollute America with industrial waste.
Giving your life to defend against these would be a good start.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Politics Aside
March 24, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten, I’m calling you out! What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?
By George Washington
March 24, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
What part of “Avoid foreign military entanglements” do you idiot Repukes not understand? If you are not careful, you will soon have to defend your but-ts against my size 13 right foot!
By Disgusted
March 24, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Surely Wooten’s question is purely rhetorical. Where would we secure the troops to defend any other country, given that our own are serving triple and quadruple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan?
By Politics Aside
March 24, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Wooten. If you can write the correct spin on Iraq’s mission, and it is possible, you can assure a republican coup in november.
Do you know what that mission statement is? Mr. Wooten?
I demand you tell your readers what the mission of US troops in Iraq is, sir. With all due respect.
Until then, stfu. With all due due.
sir
Obama. It’s America, sap.
By Politics Aside
March 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
No, Disgusted. Wooten’s Q is not rhetorical.
One has to understand post WW2, which is like Chairman Mao said, “Man who sign treaty on battleship, find pearls harbored in butt by Geisha girls, and get big surprise one by one”. no, wait that was Long Wong Silver (another chinese ripoff, do you believe those guys?)
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
JBM: “Freest economies”? THAT’s what you would base our decision to support them on? Seems a bit… lacking. What about their human rights record? What about their level of political freedom? What about their strategic importance and cooperation on our various multinational initiatives (world health, poverty, education, etc.)?
America isn’t a corporation; we’re a COUNTRY. And a society. Focusing only on economics is a pretty shallow way to handle foreign relations.
By ron
March 24, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Good morning Jim,Good subject.Let me answer you this way:If I get to send your grandchildren and not mine,my list is rather large.If I have to send my grandchildren,The list is much smaller.
By GayGreyGeek
March 24, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Um, jmblaw, maybe you didn’t notice, but Hong Kong isn’t a “nation”. Since July 1, 1997, Hong Kong has been, and still is, part of mainland China.
Of course, I realize you never let little things like “demonstrable facts” or “undeniable truth” get in the way, but, wow - if you can make this obvious a whopper, I really feel sorry for your clients.
By Glenn
March 24, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
I hear strains of Randy Newman’s “Political Science”…”We’ll save Australia. Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo…”
For what U.S. interest are we defending these nations? For their commitment to democracy? To simple freedom? To their proximity to a free market economy? For their strategic value (see Monroe Doctrine)? For old times’ sake? For their marsupials?
And, not to put too fine an ICBM on it, but what’s with the cherry-picking of the UK? North Korea, anyone?
By Mid-South Philosopher
March 24, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim.
I find myself in agreement with jbmlaw’s list. However, I would be a bit stronger in my support for Israel.
I agree with OneForTheRoad’s perception of our leadership after the September 11 Islamist Fanatic attack against us. Unfortunately, George Bush was not up to the task of real leadership. He sought advice from the poorest of advisors and acted accordingly. Whether or not the Iraq War was due all or in part to the greed for oil, an effort to redesign the social and political status of the Shi’a Crescent(Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria), or simply the effects of a testosterone rush, only time and history will tell.
As Georgie prepares to return to pick-up and boot in Texas, he only has a little time to correct the following points in his legacy:
Not one high placed (or low placed, for that matter) member of the American intelligence community has been disciplined or fired for faciliting the alleged incorrect intelligence that the President relied upon in justifying the invasion of Iraq.
In other words, Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be just as lost as Georgie Bush’s service to the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War.
After almost seven years, Usama bin-Laden remains at liberty and apparently free to communicate with his minions around the world. Additionally, with the exception of in Iraq, it seems that Al-Qaeda is growing in strength and influence in the Islamist world.
Despite the President’s oath of office, America’s borders (especially the southern border) remain largely opened. There is no telling how many Islamist fanatics have crossed over for purposes other than the more admirable motives of the vast majority of Hispanics who arrive to work for a better life.
Finally, while he is not responsible for it, the recession that is likely to come will be remembered as a part of the Bush economy as the Democrats lead us into new levels of socialism over the next four years.
The sad, brutal truth is that John McCain should have been elected President in 2000. The fact that the good Senator was mugged by the strategies of the Architect provided us with the most incompetent Chief Executive with the possible exception of Franklin Pierce, who, I believe, is some sort of ancestor of George W. Bush. Maybe it is a *family tradition.”
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
The early results of Jim’s poll are disconcerting. Our friend TW @ 8:41 seemingly argues that freedom for others is not worth any US effort. Our friends Redneck @ 8:57 and One @ 9:12 and George @ 9:22 posit similar isolationist views. Dennis @ 9:17 argues that the only enemies are domestic, and would declare war against those who defend freedom. Disgusted @ 9:27 suggests that hypothetical arguments are illegitimate.
Such shallow views of the evil we face daily throughout the world provide aid and comfort for the enemies of freedom. Those who are unwilling to defend freedom do not merit it themselves. I respectfully urge all to consider the question more thoughtfully. While I disagree with Jim’s leftist oriented “who is your daddy” basis for the question – “who” is a less meritorious basis for response than “why” – some thoughtful consideration of the appropriate use of military force is a mark of serious minds. Let’s see it, guys.
By Politics Aside
March 24, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Wooten is asking if we should die to defend Hong Kong, which was illegally stolen by China in 1999 because of a treaty we signed around the same time we signed all those treaties with the indians, which our esteemed supreme court ruled invalid and which nobody expected us to honor anyway.
SO lets fight to get Hong Kong back! We lost trillions to the chinese. Comeon! It was the sign-and-run liberals who caused this!
I know not what others may say, but give me Hong Kong or give me DEATH!
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Dear Copyleft @ 9:39, I notice your absence of answer. Too tough for you to consider, I suppose. No surprise.
Dear GGG @ 9:43, I think you do not know the definition of “nation.” It is not merely a political subdivision. I suppose that distinction escapes you.
Dear Glenn @ 9:43, you ask the $64,000 question. You do not answer it, but I think I know you well enough to know that you have a good one, ready to spring it at the right moment.
By GayGreyGeek
March 24, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Copyleft - jbmlaw is of the Paleocon mindset of “Big Bidness == USA”. There is nothing more than moeny and Bid Bidness for the ‘cons, hence the corporate welfare to Halliburton via Iraq, to Bear Stearns via the Fed, etc.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Well, Jim Wooten has asked us a question. I believe the idea is to get an answer.(Surprise!)Now, let’s see.What countries would you be willing to defend? I might put it another way. What countries would you be willing to fight for offensively?
I cannot answer that question quickly unless it is aligned with an atomic bomb attack on the USA. Any other situation is different with considerations, questions and studies. For the moment, should we attack China in defense of Tibet? Should we attack Kenya for its ethnic killings? Should we attack Sudan because of Darfur? Should we attack Congo for its ethnic killings? And, of course, should we attack Iran for arming terrorists to infiltrate Iraq?
If the CIA and British Intelligence tell us that wmds await us, how long would you wait to find out if they were correct? How long would you wait to attack the home base of terrorists who had killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen?
George W. Bush had those questions to answer and he reasoned correctly. We cannot wait forever on another attack on our country. Nor could we wait on the completion of wmds by an ambitious dictator who had already gassed whole villages of his own people.
You can guess all you want. Bush had to make decisions. I am glad he was and is making those decisions. I count on McCain to be the next strong decision maker.
(See you later. Gone for the morning.)
By RW (the bidet)
March 24, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Wooten: Do you know what grammatical faux pas you committed in the Taiwan piece today? I also ask the crew here, where’s the syntactical gaff that would force me as teacher to give wooten’s composition written on a typewriter with sticky keys a D+.
For extra credit. name the grammatical error in the opening voice over to the original startrek tv show.
But back to the debate. Wooten is asking us, class, if we’d fight for San Francisco, the America that for the first time in his adult life, he is ashamed of. That America. (to refer to yesterday’s embarrassingly self absorbed and pitiable drivel).
By GayGreyGeek
March 24, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw - Playing Newspeak games, like the good little paleocon you are, doesn’t change the fact that Hong Kong is NOT a “nation”. You can hold your hands over your ears, scream LALALALALA and hold your breath until you’re blue in the face, but those actions won’t change the FACT that Hong Kong is, in no way, an independent nation.
By GayGreyGeek
March 24, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
DustBuster - as you have bleated innumeriable times: BUSH ISN’T RUNNING THIS YEAR, so no boosterism, no cheerleading, no anything is needed. Per your OWN standards.
Thank you for playing. You’ll receive your Lovly Parting Gifts later.
By OneForTheRoad
March 24, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw apparently “reads” what his brain wants to hear. My view, first of all, is not generically described as “isolationist”. Second, I hardly think that you are capable of reading my mind or anyone else’s. Therefore, you are equally incapable of lumping me into one of your “categories” with another. Third, the “shallowness” of the view is directly proportional to the depth of the “dig”. So, respectfully, dig a little deeper.
Now, on to your earlier post. You reference “freest economies” as ones worthy of our help. If China and India were to be attacked and were no longer trading “partners” due to their need to divert their “resources” against their enemies, would we help them or their enemies? Please do not feel obligated to provide a generic response. You could cite certain enemies and certain other conditionals as you see fit. I would certainly expect that your response would reference the impacts on our economy of each nation in this war.
By Van
March 24, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hello. Allow me to introduce myself. I am a blogger. I sit at my desk all day, stealing time away from my employer, engaging in pointless banter with other bloggers. I am firmly entrenched in my belief system, so rest assured that nothing you write will ever resonate with me as possibly having any validity. On the contrary, whenever my belief system is challenged I will be ready to respond with my rapier wit and eager fingers. I have an arsenal of “facts” that I have gathered (again, sorry Mr. Employer as defending my belief system requires that I spend my time engaged in copious amounts of internet searches in order to back up said belief system) to refute your asinine opinions. I am rude, I am a bully, in cyberspace that is. You see, in the real analog world I really don’t feel all that empowered, so therefore I have staked out a small piece of cyberspace where I can feel important. The more people I can engage in “debate”, the more important I feel. I do so want to feel important. Will you help me?
By Cheney's Okay
March 24, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Bush is campaigning for McCain when he comments about Taiwan. See? International experience of the Right.
How secure Americans must fell with such an eloquent president enunciating official strategic postures about the Straits of Taiwan.
There’s still most of a year left with this loose cannon, locked and loaded…just spouting off whatever comes to the top of his head.
W
By Cochise
March 24, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Van speak with forked tongue. Worse, he has tongue in cheek. Worse, he speaks out of his azz, like the cheek-spreading loaf pincher most white man be in real life.
I wont sign no land treaty with Van, Van, the loco-motion-lotion hand.
By Glenn
March 24, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Mssr. Bidet,
In his efforts to go boldly into the column’s lede, Jim omits the commas denoting the subordinate clause, so that he has the U.S. once promising Taiwan “to defend mainland China”.
He makes a similar error in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, wherein he begins a parenthetical sub with a comma but omits the second comma.
But then who am I to judge? I use up Jim’s spare commas willy-nilly.
By Hong Kong Fooey
March 24, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, Hong Kong may have a free economy, but it is not a nation.
By Dennis
March 24, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
By jbmlaw March 24, 2008 9:48 AM “Dennis @ 9:17 argues that the only enemies are domestic, and would declare war against those who defend freedom…Such shallow views of the evil we face daily throughout the world provide aid and comfort for the enemies of freedom.”
And you, Sir, provide “aid and comfort for the [internal] enemies of freedom” in THIS country who would just as soon eat your a-s up as that of any other American who opposes them.
After you get the mandated drivers license that Homeland Security is pushing up the a_ses of all freedom loving Americans who are not terrorists, you’ll probably still tell yourself that you are “free”.
In time to come, in this country, every new born baby will be fitted with a chip in his/her butt so that the corporate controlled government that you support can be protected from Americans.
You can swallow the gruel that Jim Wooten writes if you want to. It’s a free country. Or is it?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By George Washington
March 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Ok Warmongers, your fate is sealed….
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
JBM: I notice your absence of an adequate defense of your reasoning… basing alliance solely on “freest economy” terms. Big surprise.
By Glenn
March 24, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Dear General Washington:
War mongering sometimes is good, yes?
Your former subordinate and fellow Virginian, Mr. Jefferson, launched a preemptive war, yes?
War, in this sinful human system of things, is sometimes a necessary evil, yes?
You haven’t become a pacifist now have you, General?
By Cochise
March 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
I really hate it when I get out-marooned. That’s why I wont do two blogs. Wont do it.
By Van
March 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
The response from the lefties does surprise me. I would have thought that the noble response would be, that any nation that calls on its friends or for that manner any free country to come to its aid or defense would be right up there on the top noble things to do list.
Or is it just a conservative notion to come to the aid of your neighbor when they are in trouble?
Come to think about it, it is a religious point of view that reminds us we are our brothers keeper, and the left would not allow that thinking at all.
So to answer Jim Wooten’s query, if they come to us and call upon our great nation to help them against an foe, it is almost a duty to assist. How can we be a good nation if we do not help those that seek our help? What type of person would tell their neighbor, too bad about those guys I saw sneaking around your house, YOU should have protected your house better.
Now, to answer your questions ahead of time, the manner and degree of assistance would depend on the situation.
Just like when Thailand was struck with the Tsunami, and our military rushed in with ships to provide first aid, fresh drinking water and initial relief, the response would have to fit the need, and with the approval of our leaders.
By @@
March 24, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Aw shucks Jim, that’s easy enough. That would be any country that does not put, at risk, a corollary…..er coronary within the heart of America which beats freely to and fro.
Okey dokey?
By ron
March 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
It is a conservative notion to go to the aid of neighboring countries to wage war whether they’re in trouble or not.It is a liberal notion to go to the aid of their neighbor.
By TW
March 24, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Van - results based evaluation finds your ‘aid’ very similar to al qaedas…
Also, forgive my forgetfulness, but aren’t congratulations in order for the rightwing victory in Iran last week? Way to keep a stronghold on the region, boys!
By Dennis
March 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw; This one’s for you. And Jim Wooten.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/rhonda-lokeman/spies-like-us.html
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Cochise
March 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Wooten is asking if you’d defend slavery with your life, you know, if this were seven score and four years ago. That’s what happened in Georgia, people. Did you know Cobb County is named for a man who died at Fredricksburg for the Truth of Slavery?
Lincoln was the first person to solve the civil war: the civil war was the manifestation of the truth that slavery had no reason to exist. Lincoln trusted that the inherited moral advantage of truth would endow any army with an equivalent military advantage.
He was right. Why? Because an army needs a strategic mission first. That strategic mission must necessarily be aligned with the spin of it’s founding army’s truth.
Lincoln deduced that human evolution was measured in terms of moral underwriting. Slavery was immoral, thus slavery had no reason to exist. That insight bestowed the military confidence in Lincoln that removed the fog of war from his eyes first, and thus aided, by xmas, 1863, he saw Grant.
The key to the Civil War was the knowledge that nothing bad can happen to a large army in the field. Armies can always engineer a tactical victory and withdraw.
So the mission of the confederate army, to preserve slavery, could not bestow any deliverable strategic visions. Why not? Because Lee’s strategic vision for the confederacy was only his reluctance to fight his beloved Virginia. He chose the south cause his ma lived in Richmond, not because he believed in the cause. Thus the confederate army’s missions could not conform to the Confederate’s strategic vision.
So the question becomes, “What strategic vision is guiding the mission of our troops in Iraq?”
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
Dear GGG @10:07, to the extent that you argue that China and Hong Kong are one nation, I disagree. Tibet should illustrate that point to your satisfaction. (Even John Edwards and Jeremiah Wright would disagree with your perspective, to bring it a little closer to home.) Hong Kong is essentially the same country it was 10 years ago (and even more like the country it was 20 years ago), whereas the nation of China is changing for the better, much faster than its government. Political entities often lag their nations, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. And I notice you still have not attempted to answer Jim’s morning question?
Dear One @ 10:21, while you still have not attempted to answer Jim’s morning question, nevertheless you offer multiple legitimate inquiries: (1) “If China and India were to be attacked and were no longer trading “partners” due to their need to divert their “resources” against their enemies, would we help them or their enemies?” Or neither, perhaps. I begin from the perspective that the entire world is/should be our “trading partners,” (yes, even Cuba and North Korea), so that “status” is not a meaningful consideration in my calculus. Neither would your proposed causation (“need to divert their resources”) be an element in my consideration. I confess my sympathies generally fall with an innocent attacked wrongfully (e.g., Columbia, recent innocent victim of Venezuela and Ecuador, or Kuwait 1990 innocent victim of Saddam’s Iraq.) The core flaw in the inquiry, from my view, is that it embraces a utilitarian analysis of right and wrong. My earlier argument in favor of “freedom lovers” was not founded on the desirability of mutual defense (although that surely has merit) but rather that nations that embrace freedom are on the right side of the angels, generally, and deserve support for that Kantian reason.
(2) “Please do not feel obligated to provide a generic response. You could cite certain enemies and certain other conditionals as you see fit.” I prefer to try to define eternal principles, rather than make a case-by-case adjudication. I think a principled response provides clearer thinking, and should normally be a more honest way to determine exactly who are our enemies.
(3) “I would certainly expect that your response would reference the impacts on our economy of each nation in this war.” Well, I think long-term it does; by providing the world a stable set of values, we enhance the bonds of trade. A helter-skelter “what’s in it for the US” review does not promote our long-term interest, even if it offers short-term benefit.
Dear Van @ 11:28, well-argued.
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Cochise @ 12:45, easy question: “What strategic vision is guiding the mission of our troops in Iraq?” Answer: preservation and expansion of freedom, and defeat of those who would enslave others. I’m sure you wanted one of our leftists to answer, but I’d rather rub their noses in it.
By jm
March 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
I wonder if by defend, Mr. Wooten means “fight for”, as opposed to “fight with”.
By Evelyn Baker
March 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
That’s not jbmlaw. nor the mission of us troops. troll alert.
By Southern Democrat
March 24, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Hmmm… I seem to recall a treaty that binds us to defend several nations in Europe? Some may have forgotten its potency after our president rejected the aid of NATO in the wake of September 11th (and now sends Secretary Gates to beg them to send more troops to Afghanistan).
The will of NATO was strong as the towers fell and the Pentagon burned, just as that of the American people.
The message given by the White House was, “No help needed. Go about your daily business. And make sure to shop.”
Pathetic.
By the way, this is what your vice president thinks of the American public. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/
I hope everyone is as offended by the hubris of this man as me.
By Evelyn Baker
March 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
Wooten asks if we would fight to defend Panama from a druglord presidente.
Wooten asks if we would fight to defend Afghanistan from a druglord presidente.
See how naive that question Wooten asked is? Are you people so simple that you dont know when you’re being laid in a row like so many ducks?
What are you all, Tin Bloggers?
By OneForTheRoad
March 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I clearly understand that you either do not grasp my answer to Jim’s question or else that you do not accept it and hence cannot acknowledge it (The world is round. Heretic! I will not listen! LALALALA, as someone else put it.). That is a far cry from your assertion that I simply did not answer. Further, your reply to my questions only reinforces my case.
Have a good day — within the confines of your little world, that is.
By jbmlaw
March 24, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 1:21, good afternoon. While I know what you meant – you intended to end the sentence with “I” – your otherwise well-argued note is inadvertently funny: “I hope everyone is as offended by the hubris of this man as me.” (And of course, I am a big fan of Cheney.)
Dear One @ 1:25, I’m sorry you do not understand why your utilitarian analysis is not valid for any Kantian, but that is a defect we cannot cure on a blog.
By Evelyn Baker
March 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
If that was Jbmlaw which i totally doubt, then your answer reveals your understanding of the geo-political situation in Iraq. yes, the strategic vision of the USA’s army is about freedom and slavery did once form part of that vision, but what is the mission of us troops in iraq? there’s no way to spin that mission in terms of the overall strategic mission of our country. Try. You’ll fail. Truth is the great debater.
By Evelyn Baker
March 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
one for the road = jbmlaw (or glenn)
these two nitwits are playing good moron /bad moron to the blog. They really are blog-simple, but then you knew that.
But blog on. Just dont think you be foolin’ anyone.
None of the readers here respect mediocrity.
By OneForTheRoad
March 24, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
jbm,
You clearly would need instruction on curing a defect even if present on a log.
By Najeh Davenpoop
March 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
It’s too bad Thomas Jefferson isn’t still the president.
A lot of people around the world would magically stop hating America if America stayed the f-ck out of everyone else’s business.
By cal
March 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
If Lincoln were awarding good right thinking on GOP Awards nite, he’d give Wooten a set of steak knives.
By getalife
March 24, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
Q: How can you tell Spitzer is a Democrat?
A: He was caught with a woman.
Watch “Why we fight” to see why they want war.
Eisenhower was right. 4000 dead is the price for their greed.
They will burn in hell.
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Providing AID is noble. Fighting somebody else’s wars for them, regardless of circumstances, is idiotic.
It’s called “playing World Police,” and it’s what enables other advanced nations to spend their money on their own people and infrastructure, secure in the knowledge that the good ol’ U.S. will do all their military work for them.
Terrible, stupid idea. I didn’t like Saddam either, but you know what? It was the IRAQIS’ job to deal with him. Not ours.
By Huh?
March 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Uh, Mr. Davenpoop … you do realize this isn’t a sports blog, right? Sorry, but the context is like running across Paris Hilton in the fishing section in Wal-Mart.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Well, I get back to my computer and what do I find on the Thinking Right blog? Another overdose of liberal poison propaganda pills for America. I’ll give you a review:
TW 8:41…dilomatic faitures..we are vulnerable to another attack (but we haven’t had one!)
RedNeck 8:57..we don’t need to be using our troops and A bombs defending Israel.(We’re not!)
Dennis 9:17..whole paragraph on US spying on self, unwarranted wars, citizens in prison without charges, Ft. Benning training terrorists, low wages to make money for corporations (almost 100% wrong)
MidSouthPhil 9;47…George Bush not real leadership..after oil, Bush military records lost. (Bush military records are present and open for observation.)
GGG 9:54..Conservatives only want corporate profits….Halliburton.. (Rediculous.)
Dennis 11:00… mandated drivers licenses will remove freedom.(Not mine and other legals)
Cochise 12:45…Wooten asking if you defend slavery with your life.(He did not.)
Southern Democrat 1:21…Bush said no help needed from NATO (Bush asked for help from UN and a revised joint force of NATO for help).
I skipped a few. We would have less saboteurs if PoFo would stop using so many IDs. But I have a question also. How do liberals think this kind of stuff helps the United States of America?
By So what you're saying ...
March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
is that the AJC sports section is to Wooten’s blog what Neiman Marcus is to Wal-mart? I can’t disagree.
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
So, to answer Wooten’s original question:
“What nations would you be willing to defend at the risk of war?”
Shorn of ALL considerations of circumstance, no questions asked, we-got-yer-back-no-matter whut? NONE. That would be a very stupid policy, as stated. (And as we’ve learned through bitter experience.)
By Sam Baker
March 24, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
“But I have a question also. How do liberals think this kind of stuff helps the United States of America?”
Which leads me to this question … what kind of stuff?
By Redneck Convert
March 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Well, I see Sister Dusty is cranky again. Leastwise I wish she’d stop spelling my name with a big N.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Sam Baker alias PoFo @ 3:07
What kind of stuff? you ask.
The same kind of stuff you liberals dump on here every day.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
RedNeck @3:11
You don’t want your name spelled with a big N?? I thought I would give you ONE big thing.
By Tim
March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
How do you manage to move when you WRAP YOURSELF SO TIGHTLY IN THE FLAG?I love this country to, But to think that 1. every war we fight is worth it, and 2. Blindly following ANYONE is ok, you must really be blind. Viewing our society with a critical eye at all times is nessasary, as it prevents our “leaders” from taking us in the wrong direction…. I am sorry, isn’t that happening now? Please don’t be a fool. Curious George and the V.P. in the big yellow hat are throwing under the bus, and so many on the right are willing to go without even putting up a fight.
By Sam Baker
March 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
No liberal here. Nice of you to assume, though. It just proves the old saying true.
I don’t mind what liberals dump here. It keeps me informed about what they are thinking. It’s also something I and many others value – free speech. I won’t assume you are against that concept.
By ron
March 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Redneck,That Dusty girl seems to know you quite well.
By George Washington
March 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
I was not willing to fight wwi, let alone provoke Japan into attacking us to get us into wwii, and I sure as heck opposed Korea and Viet Nam, so you can imagine what I think about defending Tiawan or Israel. Avoid foreign military entanglements, STUPIDS.
By Redneck Convert
March 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Well, she’s my sister-in-law, so I see her every holiday. She’s the meanest one in her fambly when she gets all liquored up like she is this afternoon.
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
I’ll be happy to answer Dusty’s question, though I doubt she’ll understand the reasoning.
“How do liberals think this kind of stuff helps the United States of America?”
It helps us THINK and QUESTION what our government does, rather than blindly and blithely assume that anything we do is automatically okay because we’re ‘the good guys.’
It forces us to acknowledge that we’re not perfect, and there’s always room for improvement. It helps keep arrogance and jingoism in check.
It reminds us that America has made mistakes, and is always better for acknowledging and learning from them, rather than pretending they never happened.
It reminds us that all knowledge is incomplete; all conclusions are temporary; and all decisions can, (and should) change when new information comes to light.
Stubbornness isn’t a virtue when you’re wrong. That’s something Dusty, GW Bush, and a few other unthinking hyper-patriotic types could stand to remember a bit more often.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Tim@3:19
Believe me, being wrapped in the flag of the USA is better than being wrapped in the white flag of retreat and surrender.
You have already decided which one you will carry. You don’t LIKE the war we are fighting. You don’t LIKE the leadership. You don’t think we are doing anything right.
You suggested that I not be a fool. Well, I am a fool for freedom and willing to fight for it sensibly. You carry your white flag and I will carry the red, white and blue. We won’t be in the same parade.
By George Washington
March 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
I never trusted patriots in my army after the Arnold incident - those who wrap themselves have something to hide…
By Redneck Convert
March 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
Well, it just goes to show Wooten shouldn’t allow two Redneck Converts on this blog. This guy at 3:31 don’t know hardly nothing. If Dusty was my sister in law there would only be one Redneck Convert because this one would of been buried after his suicide.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Poor Copyleft,3:32
You think this liberal STUFF displays thinking and questioning? The lies included? That liberals are all for patriotism and not politics? That only conservatives make mistakes but a liberal is never wrong? Forgeries are for fun? Encouraging terrorists helps the country?
Stubborness IS a virtue when you are RIGHT. Copyleft, did it ever occur to you that YOU might be wrong?
By AmVet
March 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
The White House calls 4000 KIA a “sober” moment.
If not so freaking tragic, it would be funny coming from such power-drunk and deadly screw ups…
And IF there is a hell, they all belong there.
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Dusty: Of course it occurs to me. The question is, does it ever occur to YOU? Judging from the intolerance you show for any level of dissent or questioning, it seems you don’t.
If you think a different opinion is “encouraging terrorists”… If you think anything you disagree with is a “lie”… If you think that one side is always right and the other’s always wrong (whether it’s conservative vs. liberal or even U.S. vs. another country)…
Then you don’t fully grasp what America stands for.
By Jackie
March 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
It is coming up to the last two minutes in this proverbial game. The score is tied and the neo-cons are playing defense. Their best player has four fouls and a sprained ankle. I am sure the other team is aware of these facts and they will exploit the weakness.
Our professional military has been saying for years that our ground forces - Army and Marines - are at the point of breaking because of the multiple rotations and lack of retention; the high number of casualties (4,000 deaths and 30,000 major injuries).
The professional military has said we do not have the ability to defend this country against a major assault because our manpower is lacking; our equipment readiness of inadequate; National Guard and Reserves are understaffed and not available; the money being spent by the Pentagon is for high-tech weapons and “bribes” to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and other countries to keep them from rising up.
Should we defend other countries in military distress? Yes, if it is part of treaty obligations. Will we defend them? Not unless we can use nuclear, air or sea power.
Dubya has said he is the “decider” and he only listens to the advise of his professional military. From the evidence that is available, the “decider” has rode our military into a big ditch.
By Tim
March 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
Dusty, FYI I have served proudly in our Military (1985 through 1995), so your assumptions are incorrect. That being said, questioning the rational and actions of our leaders is all about embracing freedom. Standing by and being a cheerleader while the wool gets pulled over your eyes is just foolish! Read Copyleft at 3:32. Be objective. You will be a better “American” for it.
By Copyleft
March 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
(By the way, folks: Did I call it, or what? I SAID Dusty wouldn’t understand the validity of questioning what our government does… and sure enough, she doesn’t!)
Dusty, you may have given me a great new signature line to use on messages:
“Patriotism is a poor substitute for thinking.”
By So what you're saying ...
March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
Is that Copyleft and Dennis are one and the same person? Inquiring minds in the Department of Homeland Security want to know.
By ridneckConslurp
March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
Sorry redneck, but the troll redneck is more interesting than the original. But both are wipe me nots.
By Jackie
March 24, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
The neo-cons, communication and keyboard warriors have all said they “support our troops” loudly.
Our troops consist of roughly %5 of the American populace.
Now, they are in major trouble, the DRAFT needs to be reinstated. Charlie Wrangle - (D-NY, US Army, Korea War, Bronze Star) - called for a draft a couple of years past and the neo-cons kicked, screamed and scoffed at the idea. I recall their saying there was no need for the draft and the folks taking on this monumental task was all that was needed to defend this country while they took Dubya’s advice to “go to mall and shop.”
Now that the “enemy may be at the gate”, where are these “brave keyboard and communication warriors” when the country needs them?
Don’t tell me they are hiding in the closet, taking off their wet pants and murmuring “please don’t hurt me?”
Please stand up and head down to the recruiting office. YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!!!!
Are you saying that you can’t go because you have a old “knee injury” from football while you still jog daily?
By Communist China
March 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
Dear Comrade Dusty:
Our Department of Human Resources has identified your skills as a blind follower of the government line a perfect match for our Department of Propaganda. We need another spokeswoman for The Great People’s Republic and are prepared to offer you a generous salary, a government apartment and all the dim sum you can eat. We look forward to a postive response form you. Mao be praised.
By Dennis
March 24, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
By Sam Baker March 24, 2008 3:24 PM “I and many others value – free speech. I won’t assume you are against that concept.”
Even if it is a lie that gets people killed, or maimed, or destroys their personal lives and fortunes?
Free speech is fine, but it must be responsible, accountable free speech.
Unfortunately, although not limited to him, that has not been the case with the Bush administration.
Nor for that matter the mainstream media.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Poor Copyleft@3:53
He likes free speech but he would do away with mine.
Every “differing opinion” does not encourage terrorists….right now libs do not support the very ones who are fighting terror, i.e. the USA and others. Liberal opinions here make terrorists feel good, our military feel bad. Get it?
Endorsement of forged documents (Bush’s military record), lies about McCain’s ‘spiritual advisors’(see Hagee and ‘spiritual spoofs’), old unfounded accusations about Halliburton/oil, the Cheney and Bush family insinuations, denying all military successes such as the Surge…. those are the liberal lies I dislike. There are many more.
I don’t think YOU appreciate your freedom. I will always fight those who try to take it away from us.
By Tim
March 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Copyleft @3:58
Can I piggy back on that?
By Sam Baker
March 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
It was your speech I was defending to that crackpot, Dusty. Thanks for your support?
By AmVet
March 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
Jackie, I prefer Nader’s draft at the top plan.
President Bush believes that the war in Iraq is “worth the sacrifice.”
The question then becomes - sacrifice by whom?
What about George Bush’s daughters - Jenna and Barbara?
Prince Harry served in Afghanistan.
Senator Jim Webb and Senator John McCain each have a son who has served in Iraq.
During World War II four of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sons entered the armed forces, as did General Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower.
No double standard for them.
And why not military service for the children of all members of Congress - who have funded this criminal war in Iraq?
There is a certain moral authority to govern - setting an example - sharing in the sacrifice initiated by the White House - that escape George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their enablers in Congress.
They have children who have declined to serve during the Iraq war.
While four thousand young American men and women have died in this needless, criminal war.
And tens of thousands have been seriously injured.
Why the double standard?
So, why not Jenna and Barbara Bush?
We have a simple cure for this double standard.
It’s called - draft at the top.
Pass a law that says this - whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.
Nader/Gonzalez supports draft at the top.
Clinton/Obama/McCain are opposed.
As we tour the country, seeking to get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot, we will gather support for the draft at the top proposal.
Damn straight! Watch how the cut and runners in Congress go to Canada en masse before Johnny and Susie have to pay the price for their chickenhawk gutlessness…
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
Copyleft @3:56
So this is your new signature…Patriotism is a poor substitute for thinking. Figures!
But…No patriotism is worse.
By Moe
March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
No dusty, wooten is asking if we’d defend slavery with our lives. He’s is asking, ” would we fight for a spin about US interests that he alone gets to define”. So, if it were 1864, you know, seven score and four years ago, he would order you, dusty, to send your son to die for slavery.
Proof? A chinese invasion of Taiwan was a “full retaliatory response” nuclear trigger for decades. Until Wooten’s GOP sellouts decided maybe it’s not. See? the Wootens of this country decide what is US interests. and it’s arbitrary as the wind.
Wooten is asking for carte blanche permission to send your son to fight, dusty, for any reason he deems as representing US interests. And 4 that, he deserves to be put behind bars.
You redefine the depth of your ignorance every day dusty, and I think it’s a damn shame. Wooten’s laughing at you. Cant you see?
By AmVet
March 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Although I have found most Republican “leaders” in the past thirty years to have been generally reprehensible, I find John McCain a tiny breath of fresh air in this squalid neo-con infested GOP.
Apparently much of the rest of the nation agrees.
But in a perverse sort of way, it would have been fun to watch Fat Fred or Mitt the Flip-flopper or Rudy the Desperate RINO win the nomination.
Just to watch the ensuing landslide against them.
But it really matters not.
The fake conservatives are effectively dead and just awaiting burial…
By Dusty
March 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
Oh my, liberals at work supporting free speech. Oh yes..
I should enlist. I should work for communist China. I should not be patriotic but think. I should be RedNeck’s sister-in-law!!! (a fate worse than death!!) That last one from our local yokel is enough to make me lose my lunch. Yikes!!!
By Dennis
March 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
By Dusty March 24, 2008 4:20 PM “Every “differing opinion” does not encourage terrorists….right now libs do not support the very ones who are fighting terror, i.e. the USA and others. Liberal opinions here make terrorists feel good, our mil