Study: U.S. Mideast policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

He also pointed out the other fact which you conviniently chose to ignore.

 

What you really need to be concerned about is that they eat babies, drink blood, and can kill you with a butt from their horns or a swipe of their razor sharp claws.

 

Nope, the reason is that it is a democracy and an ally. Tiger, you seem to think that our support for Israel is manufactured and illegitimate. I could not disagree more. They are a very valuable and important ally. And I think they deserve defense for moral and strategic reasons in much the same way that Taiwan does.

 

US protects Taiwan for moral reasons? Er, ignorance can be bliss.

 

Er, yes. No you're right. We protect them for the huge economic partnership...oops it's China that has the huge economy.

 

Mr. Clutch, if you think the "moral" reason for US to protect Taiwan is because Taiwan is a democracy, you don't know much about Taiwan, and for that matter, China.

 

Study: Anti-Semetism on the Rise Among the American Left.

 

This is at best a vast overstatement. Please elaborate and list out democratic regimes toppled and replaced with despotic regimes with US aid and support.

OTOH US history IS filled with instances in which despotic regimes were toppled and replaced with democratic regimes with US aid and support.

Wow. That's quite the smoking gun, lol.

 

The moral reason to protect Taiwan was that their government has been a historical ally with the US, and abandoning an ally for material gain is not a moral act. More recently the clear distinction between the democratic regimes in Taiwan and the non-democratic regimes in the PRC are also certainly a moral reason to continue to offer protection to Taiwan. When Clinton put the 7th Fleet in the Taiwan Straits in '95 that wasn't for economic gain, lol.

 

Hayes, I love to ride that democracy high horse you've owned. If you want to play the game of the meaning of "moral," I can tell you this, the moral of US foreign policies -- let's say post-WWII -- is anything but moral.

The authoritarian government of KMT's in Taiwan was about as brutal as, if not more than, Mao's rule of Mainland China. The motivation of US "protecting" Taiwan has been strictly due to the geo-political cause, which can be traced its roots to the Cold War stalemate involving two camps of adversaries, US and Soviet Union. The US government then was basically neutral (undecided is perhaps a better word) towards either CCP or KMT, around the time KMT was defeated and fled to Taiwan. Only when Mao pledged his alliance with Stalin did US throw its support to KMT, hence Taiwan, 100%. It had nothing to do moral principle.

There are a litany of historical cases demonstrating US foreign policies are not centered around promoting and protecting democracy. The Shah of Iran, for example, was certainly not a shining example of democratic leader, yet he enjoyed cozy relationship with the US throughout his reign. Chilean dictator Pinochet, now wanted by the war crime tribunal of his own people, had the support of US for many years simply because he was anti-communism. General Musharraf, the current military strong man of Pakistan, came to power by staging a coup to overthrow formerly democratically elected leaders of the country. The US does not seem to have any problem at all with a change of the regime from democracy to dictatorship.

The list goes on and on.

"The moral reason to protect Taiwan was that their government has been a historical ally with the US, and abandoning an ally for material gain is not a moral act." So once an ally, always an ally? I love it more, hayes, but you probably need to ask Saddam and Osama first to see if they agree.

 

I don't know tigermission is a leftie. He sure voted for Bush not once, but twice.

Many lefties on this board, as far as I can tell, are very enthusiastic supporters of Senator Russ Feingold, a Jewish American from Wisconsin.

As for myself, beside as a supporter for Feingold presidency, I listen to the radio shows of Al Franken and Randi Rhodes from time to time and find their opinions very refreshing and agreeable. I am sure you know both Al are Randi are also Jewish.

 

I generally abstain from making sweeping generalizations as you do. I don't remember saying that US foreign policy was strictly moral. Please refrain from making false assertions about my position.

Really? I dare to disagree as I don't think anything the KMT did was comparable to just to Cultural Revolution, much less the rest of Mao's reign.

The US was allied with the KMT prior to our entry into WWII, not post-WWII. Silly boy. Certainly an objection to Mao's communism fueled that alliance further, but that we've continued that alliance post Mao and post Soviet Union belies your claim. Further, once Nixon had gone to China and there was Sino-American reapproachment, there was little reason to continue our alliance with Taiwan (which in fact continued to hurt our relations) except for a moral criteria of not abandoning Taiwan as had most of the rest of the world. It is plain from the published accounts in Congressional Hearings on the subject from the 70s onward that Congress and the Executive Branch have emphasized a continuing commitment to Taiwan on this basis.

Certainly. That is not the point of contention. Tigermission claimed our history was 'filled with examples of democracies toppled and replaced with despotic regimes' at our hand. That is not the same thing and is by and large false. There are a few (arguable) examples of this (even examples such as the Shah are not factual since his removal of the PM did more to preserve the Constitution than to violate it, Carter sanctioned Chile to get Pinochet to step down in case you forgot). That hardly qualifies as a history filled with such. Again you simply misinterpret my claim to suit your POV. Try paying attention.

Sure does. Ask Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Haiti, Greece, Austria, Bosnia, Kuwait... and on and on...

You see contradictions where there are none. I said there was a moral stance involved in continuing support for Taiwan. That does not equate to saying we are always morally bound to anyone we are allied with.

I never claimed the US FP was virtuous in totality. However I am sorry to tell you that your claim is false. As I indicated above your assertion that our history is 'filled' with examples of us overthrowing democracies for despots is a gross exaggeration at best.

The market in China is much larger than that of Taiwan. Yet we continue to harm our markets while the EU has abandoned Taiwan. Why is that, I wonder? If economics is the primary concern does that mean it excludes other concerns? I wonder what economic booty we sought to gain in Haiti, or Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Somalia? Or, to take a wild swing back to the topic of the thread, what economic boon the support of Israel provides? Please enlighten us.

 

I would be suprised if you could name five instances that meet your original assertion.

Destabilizing force in Europe? C'mon. Serbs were rolling over Bosnians and Kosovars for a YEARS before the US and Britain finally demanded action. And the action had just as much chance if not more so to destabilize Europe because of the close historical (cultural and religious) ties between Serbia and Russia (examine the hardline backlash in Russia which was the main reason the Russians threatened to veto UN action in the first place). The main reason the Clinton administration moved to intervene was the media coverage of the genocide not some RAND scenario of an ever widening war.

Respond to threats quicker? That's ridiculous. We have troops PARKED in the Gulf and our projection capabilities make an alliance with Israel completely unnecessary. If our motives were purely economic we'd have dispensed with our relationship with Israel long ago. But we digress. While we have certainly and undeniably taken action in our interests on balance, to say each action is done by that criteria is flat out wrong. Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia - just to name a few - were not done in the national interest (or realist perspective). The literature clearly delineates these conflicts, on the contrary, and outside the scope of a national interest focus. By your gooey logic ALL interventions could be explained in the national interest. Interventions to stop genocide or to further democracy are by definition NOT realist.

No, I merely am taking up your tone.

 

The way I see it, the arguments made initially by Mr. Clutch and subsequently by you come with an implied syllogism of deductive logic, which goes something like this:

major premise - (historically) when there is a conflict, US shall recognize/protect/promote the democracy;
minor premise - Taiwan has been a democracy and (it has been) in conflict with Mainland China;
conclusion - Therefore, US shall protect Taiwan from Mainland China, which is not a democracy.

The problem with the above logic is that it's invalid because there are fallacies involving both premises.

First, we know the major premise is not true because there are cases that point otherwise. An undisputed fact is Pakistan, where it was democratic (albeit corrupt) pre-Musharraf and authoritatian thereafter. Another example is the recent US refusal of acceptance of democratically elected Hamas parliament in the Palenstinian government.

Second, the minor premise is also false as I pointed out that Taiwan was under authoritarian rule of KMT. Now a little history is needed here for the uninformed readers.

After the Sino-Japanese War ended (which coincided with the end of WWII), Taiwan was returned to the Repubic of China under the ruling of KMT. In February 1947, an civil unrest on the island of Taiwan led to a bloody suppression by KMT, somewhere between 10,000-30,000 native Taiwaneses died of the ruthless crackdown known as the 2-28 Massacre. A martial law was declared in 1948 and remained in effect until 1987.

Meanwhile, hostility was intensified between the military forces of KMT and CCP in Mainland China.

Before the civil war was escalated into full scale in 1946, American General George Marshall tried to broker a truce and build a coalition government between the KMT and the CCP, despite knowing full well the nature of the communist party. John Leighton Stuart (+++ R.I.P. +++) was the US ambassador to China from 1946 to 1949. In April 1949, CCP's PLA struck and occupied Nanking, then capital of ROC. Stuart, however, did not leave with the rest of KMT officials to Southern China, instead he stayed in Nanking until August 1949. More than merely an observer, Stuart acted as a liaison between Washington and CCP by engaging in secret contacts with high level officials of the commie, and he was reported preparing the recognition (or in other words, abandoning the hopeless KMT's ROC) of upcoming establishment of PRC. Unfortunately due to the rapid changes of geopolitical climate on both side of the Pacific Ocean -- Soviet Union instigating North Korean invasion of South Korea and hysteric anti-commie Mccarthyism, Mr. John Leighton Stuart's mission was not accomplished -- he was recalled to US just two months before Mao's inaugural speech on Tian'an Men Square.

As to CCP's ruling of China, little known to many Westerners is that between 1949 and 1957 -- a year before the disastrous Great Leap Forward -- Mainland China was actually making some pretty good stride towards peace and prosperity. However, political power struggles within the CCP, Mao's bloated ego, and the ideological rifts between CCP and Soviet got the best of PRC. The rest of the history is more pronounced to the (Western) world.

On the other hand, Taiwan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the words of General Douglas MacArthur, serving much of the need for the US to contain Mainland China , did not become a "democracy" until the 40-year old martial law was lifted in the late 1980. Again, only lightly reported by Western media, the "democracy" in Taiwan is highly disputable, but that's for an entirely different thread.

Back to the topic. That US protecting Taiwan due to the "moral" or "democratic" principle is a myth at best, an outright lie at worst. I probably give you a free pass if you claim US is defending Taiwan against Mainland China because the latter is a commie, at least you are being honest although still ignorant and misguided.

In conclusion, if you want to defend US foreign policies basing on certain unshakable moral principle(s), be prepared to come up with better examples (or excuses). Cherry picking what's virtuous and convenient to suit your specific purpose just won't do it. [One other thing, "anything but moral" can be interpreted as "amoral," not necessarily "immoral."]

 

There's no question that compared to other powers, especially like Nazi Germany and the USSR, US policy is "moral". OTOH, the shill rhetoric that US foreign policy is guided by moral concerns is out of all proportion to to actual reality. US actions by and large have been guided by self interest. This is of course nothing suprising or extraordinary.

But what is extraordinary is how deluded Americans have become it terms of America's "moral" foreign policy. Is it somewhat "moral"? Perhaps. But is it anywhere close to the rhetoric and and naive and deluded self-perception of most Americans? No way.