Why Does America Defend the Weak and Small?

[Mister D]

Snip

Two days later, in one of the most bizarre op-eds published by the New York Times in recent memory, Paul Kane suggested that the United States could literally sell out its support for democratic Taiwan for about $1 trillion. He argued that the Chinese might be so thankful to us for letting them get their hands on the island that they might forgive much of what we owe them.

So why does the United States take risks in guaranteeing the security of countries such as Israel and Taiwan? Surely the smart money — and most of the world — bets on their richer enemies. The Arab Middle East has oil, hundreds of millions of people, and lots of dangerous radical-Islamic terrorists. China is more than one billion strong, with the fastest-growing economy in the world.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283341/why-does-america-defend-weak-and-small-victor-davis-hanson

[jgreer]

Because there is more to life than money

[MMC]

Well didnt Perry just state if he was Elected President he would stop ALL Foreign Aid? Then this guy cuts this article after Obama comes out and states the US does not fear China.

My question is why would you even talk in those type of terms diplomatically or even as a leader in front of the world. is this some form of appeasement due to cracking the whip on thme about their the currency devaluation?

[Conley]

Well didnt Perry just state if he was Elected President he would stop ALL Foreign Aid? Then this guy cuts this article after Obama comes out and states the US does not fear China.

My question is why would you even talk in those type of terms diplomatically or even as a leader in front of the world. is this some form of appeasement due to cracking the whip on thme about their the currency devaluation?


Perry wouldn't do that IMO, but it's irrelevant because he'll never be POTUS. He can say anything he wants now...

What's wrong with Obama saying he doesn't fear China? Do you have the exact quote...It was about currency?

[GRUMPY]

Well didnt Perry just state if he was Elected President he would stop ALL Foreign Aid? Then this guy cuts this article after Obama comes out and states the US does not fear China.

My question is why would you even talk in those type of terms diplomatically or even as a leader in front of the world. is this some form of appeasement due to cracking the whip on thme about their the currency devaluation?

if you are referring to his remarks in the recent national security debate, then no son he did not.....he said that foreign aid would start at zero and implied that it would be merit based.....i would simply state that this nation should not give foreign aid to any nation where the govt is not representative of the people and of course in basic agreement with our values and in compliance with our national security interests.....

[MMC]

Well didnt Perry just state if he was Elected President he would stop ALL Foreign Aid? Then this guy cuts this article after Obama comes out and states the US does not fear China.

My question is why would you even talk in those type of terms diplomatically or even as a leader in front of the world. is this some form of appeasement due to cracking the whip on thme about their the currency devaluation?


Perry wouldn't do that IMO, but it's irrelevant because he'll never be POTUS. He can say anything he wants now...

What's wrong with Obama saying he doesn't fear China? Do you have the exact quote...It was about currency?


Well one if you don't fear sombody.....then you dont walk around talking about that you dont fear them. You walk about as if that thought does not exist. Even tho it may. The Chinese will view this as weakness. But technically are concerned about our expansion into the South China Sea.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-insists-us-does-not-fear-china-080628319.html

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that the United States does not fear China, even as he announced a new security agreement with Australia that is widely viewed as a response to Beijing's growing aggressiveness.

China responded swiftly, warning that an expanded U.S. military footprint in Australia may not be appropriate and deserved greater scrutiny.....snip~

[Conley]

It looks like he said this in response to a question:

"I think the notion that we fear China is mistaken. The notion that we're looking to exclude China is mistaken," he said."

[MMC]

It looks like he said this in response to a question:

"I think the notion that we fear China is mistaken. The notion that we're looking to exclude China is mistaken," he said."


Yeah and?
"It also allows us to meet the demands of a lot of partners in the region that want to feel that they're getting the training, they're getting the exercises, and that we have the presence that's necessary to maintain the security architecture in the region," Obama said.....snip~

He also said that. If we did not fear then there would be no reason for us to Maintain the security architecture for that region.

[Conley]

??? Maintaining security doesn't mean fear IMO...China is a threat. I don't think any of what he said is a surprise to anyone, and I don't think the talk means much. It's the actions that matter.

[MMC]

??? Maintaining security doesn't mean fear IMO...China is a threat. I don't think any of what he said is a surprise to anyone, and I don't think the talk means much. It's the actions that matter.


Why are they our enemy or something. One only excludes enemies. Far as I know everyone keeps saying they are not our enemy. One doesnt borrow from ones enemy. Or at least they are not suppose to.

[Conley]

??? Maintaining security doesn't mean fear IMO...China is a threat. I don't think any of what he said is a surprise to anyone, and I don't think the talk means much. It's the actions that matter.


Why are they our enemy or something. One only excludes enemies. Far as I know everyone keeps saying they are not our enemy. One doesnt borrow from ones enemy. Or at least they are not suppose to.


In some respects yes they are the enemy. But it's not a street fight, talking about not showing fear and not borrowing money. Obviously the two economies are very intertwined. It's a tightrope our government has been walking for a while.

[RollingWave]

There is direct enemy and then there is potential enemy, just because your not at war with someone doesn't mean you don't plan your defenses in case the circumstances changes one day, the USA and the USSR were never TECHNICALLY at war during the whole Cold War either, or even DIRECTLY fighting each other.

Almost any country (well except some of those pacific island onces) planes for some sort of possible military confilct, and certainly for the USA China remains pretty high on the list. though not in the same sense as say.. Iran.

In short, the US don't WANT to get into a war with China, but they also don't want China to rapidly expand it's power espeically through force. thus they've essentially adopted a modified version of their cold war strategy against the USSR, which is essentially to contain them.

China's geographically limited in it's ability to project sea power, aka unlike the USA which have the luxury of facing two Ocean, China only face one, and it's also locked in by a chain of islands that are fairly close to them.

Which is why the US have either direct military bases on, or some sort of pack with just about all those islands, be them Japan (bases), Taiwan (pac, use to have bases), and Phillipines (same as Taiwan, and seem likely to have US bases again not too far from now).

This is simply how the global geopolitical game is played.

of the bunch, obviously Taiwan's the most tricky since it's political status is the most screwed up, it's there as the result of the Chinese civil war which saw the losing side flee to the (newly reacquired back from the Japanese after WW2) Island, and nowadays most countries don't offically recongize it as a country, (Despite the fact that it's one of the wealthiest), and obviously the PRC politically claim the island as part of the unfinished busniess of the civil war.

The USA use to have bases on Taiwan but pulled out in the later 70s after they acknowledged Beijing as the "official" China, but retains military ties with Taiwan. In theory, if China wants to invade Taiwan the US would come to it's aid, but none of the party involved would really like to put that theory to the test.

The USA COULD theoretically sell Taiwan, all it needs to do is to quitely agree to not veto (or not show up to vote) on any China resolution purposed on it in the UN (like say.. full sanctions.) in that case China wouldn't even need to fire a bullet and Taiwan would likely be forced into political talks right away. and that in theory also doesn't conflict with the Taiwan protection act. since no military conflict occured.

Of couse, the geo-political consequences of such an event would be immense, probably the most serious of anything since WW2, or at least the collapse of the USSR.

[Mister D]

China most certainly does consider the US to be her primary obstacle in terms of acquiring her longed for status of regional hegemon.

[Conley]

Welcome RollingWave,

Good post. I agree the U.S. strategy with China is based largely on containment. It is the sensible path. Interesting points about how China could circumvent the Taiwan Protection Act (if the United States decided not to act). Good thing it will not come to that!

[Mister D]

Welcome, Rollingwave.