Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Not really a Pro-Bush person but a quick look around the site you posted makes me a little wary, but I'll take a shot.
I don't see this as a Bush issue, not really. He's proven himself malleable to lofty rhetoric that doesn't necessarily pass the reality test. Case in point: Bush's fascination with Natan Sharansky. As far as antiwar.com, doesn?t the fact that you find it ?distasteful? automatically brings into question the sites you frequent for news and commentary? In other words, let?s leave this for another discussion.
I think the idea that the US desires to contain China (to some extent) is most likely correct and is actually welcomed by some of their neighbors who don't want to become vassal states.
I'd image, considering current events, that lots of states are itchy about potential vasslhood, and not all of then are looking warily at China. As to whether this approach to foreign relations is correct, I'll ask you, does it matter that it can't/won't work? The fact that the fed is trying to pull it off under cover of "humanitarian" intervention just makes the whole enterprise even more dubious, and leads to us justfiably being labeled arrogant hypocrites. Contrary to popular
American opinion, the rest of the world isn't peopled by mouth-breathing morons who'll just give us our way, to the exclusion of what they want. We just don't have the resources to bribe\bully\bomb everyone who refuses to play our game. The national debt ceiling is at $9 trillion, and the debt is close to that.
Heck even Vietnam is getting pretty darn friendly lately.
That doesn't mean they approve of us, or that they disapprove of China. I'd image that they're hedging all their bets, which is the prudent thing to do.
I do think the article blows that desire somewhat out of proportion.
That's a matter of opinion. Besides, how do you overheat the stated goal of one nation to assure its economic and military supremacy, FOR-EVER? That's pretty heady stuff all by itself.
That the military would plan for a possible China-US conflict is predictable and expected.
But actively trying to goad them into a conflict isn't predictable, expected or sane.
Who else has (or will have in the next 10 years) the ability to prosecute a major war?
Who besides the US seems to want to?
Most of the weapon systems the article mentions were first envisioned/developed in the 80s and 90s and are not the result of any Bush/Condi plan to contain China.
I don't see how this matters, but okay.
The idea that selling advanced weapons to Taiwan is some sort of provocation (in terms of enabling Taiwan to go on the offensive) is laughable.
I don't see anything to laugh at. The Chinese appear to be dead serious about the issue, and since the entire affair isn't any of our business, why be so concerned? That we're selling weapons to the Taiwanese isn't surpising though. The US is the worlds largest arms dealer, and the sale has the added benefit of poking China in the eye.
It shouldn?t be much of a concern if their goal is truly a peaceful unification.
Again, not worth the effort and potential strife. If we as a nation don't learn to limit our score, reality will do it for us.