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

As previously stated, I never made any such claims. Now why don't you go back and point out where I said any such thing. Otherwise I think we can all agree there is a serious problem with your logic and your 'deduction.' I merely pointed out that Tigermission's assertion was grossly inaccurate.

Sigh.

Listen d******d, there isn't any reason to be snotty. Especially when you are either accidentally or purposefully mischaracterizing my point.

OTOH America's foreign policy has always had a moral component, especially where one is talking about what the public thinks/supports, that is unlike most other powers, especially superpowers. Certainly we wouldn't describe the FP of Nixon and Kissinger as moral, but one could easily do so for Carter and to a lesser extent for Reagan and Bush I and Clinton.

 

Or is that so? How was tigermission coming into play when you jumped into my exchange with Mr. Clutch? Go check again for yourself in post #32.

Look hayes, I am not going to call you name by returning a favor. If you want to maintain a civil discussion, be my guest. But the way you are acting right now is hardly worth my time, your glass half-full knowledge on China and Taiwan notwithstanding.

 

I don't appreciate being called ignorant. If you believe that is a civil discussion then I think you're seriously misguided.

 

Based on what you know about China and Taiwan, my characterization of "you being ignorant" is not an overstatement.

 

I'll take the high road on my high horse.

From the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act:

The Taiwan Relations Act establishes on the part of the United States a continuing connection with and concern for Taiwan and its people. Continued adherence to the Act will help Taiwan to maintain its democracy free of coercion and to safeguard its people from the use of force against them.

It is in the national interest of the United States to eliminate ambiguity and convey with clarity continued United States support for Taiwan, its people, and their ability to maintain their democracy free from coercion and their society free from the use of force against them.

A possible consequence of such ambiguity and lack of clarity was the People's Republic of China's decision to conduct military exercises and live fire missile tests in the Taiwan Strait in March 1996, necessitating House Concurrent Resolution 148, approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 369-14 on March 19, 1996, and by the Senate by a vote of 97-0 on March 21, 1996, which stated that `the United States, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the constitutional process of the United States, and consistent with its friendship with and commitment to the democratic government and people of Taiwan, should assist in defending them against invasion, missile attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China.'. Immediately following Congressional passage of House Concurrent Resolution 148, the United States deployed on an emergency basis two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait, after which the People's Republic of China ceased further planned military exercises.

http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-2000-04.htm

Further, when Carter was negotiating with Beijing about switching recognition to mainland China, Harvey Feldman, the then Director of the Office of Republic of China Affairs within the State Department, explains the reaction by Congress (leading to the Taiwan Relations Act as a replacement for our Mutual Defense Treaty):

The leaderships, Democratic as well as Republican, were
extremely angry. Taiwan's supporters, and there were many in
both parties, were appalled. And of course many Republicans were
eager to embarrass a Democratic president. As a result, there
quickly emerged a broad coalition which, in the end, included
almost every senator and every representative. Although its
membership has changed over time through death, retirement or
defeat at the polls, that broad, almost unanimous coalition
remains in being to this very day.

http://www.wufi.org.tw/eng/feldman.htm

He goes on to quote from the Act that:

....the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of
all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objective of
the United States.

And to put these concerns in proper perspective:

As it emerged from Congress, the TRA placed Taiwan in a unique
position. A government no longer recognized would continue to be
treated as the government of a friendly state for all purposes of
American law. It would have standing in American courts; its
assets in the United States were confirmed in its sole possession;
for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act it would be
treated as a separate country. Most importantly, its peaceful,
uncoerced future was stated explicitly as a matter of grave
concern for the United States, and the Congress gave itself the
equally explicit role in monitoring the way successive administra-
tions would behave toward Taiwan.

I never made a general claim. Even in the beginning of the exchange on Taiwan I said there was a moral reason to continue our support of Taiwan. I never made sweeping generalizations on a 'high horse' as you assert. Further, as I have requested in a previous post, please show where I've made such sweeping generalizations as you later claim. It should be easy. Go back, cut and paste where I've posted such a claim. To give you a guideline, this is what you say I claim:

Good luck.

 

The point though is that the actual rhetoric and self-perception on the part of the US and its citizens still is out of all proportion to reality. US foreign policy has always been conducted first and foremost to advance and further US interests and almost never out of purely genuine altrustic moralistic reasons. And the US has had no problems in seizing lands from other countries, supporting all manners of dictators and immoral regimes or vicious insurgencies or coups, etc.

No the US has never been close to being quite as evil as Nazi Germany. OTOH, nor it is this super-altruistic, super-moralistic, angelic benevolent power that the US rhetoric and many of its own citizens imagine it to be. And the constant attempt by America to portray and see itself as such will only further antagonize people who know the truth.

 

No more out of proportion than its critics, IMO, who swing just as far - if not more so - the other way from reality.

I'd be suprised if you've seen a lot of people claim US foreign policy was PURELY altruistic. That's a strawman. No one is denying that there has been a significant national interest focus. However that does not translate into either (a) our history is filled with democratic regimes toppled by despotic regimes with our aid nor (b) there is a vaccuum of moral action in our history.

Whoa there, buddy. Do you know the 'truth,' lol? The US is the most altruistic, moralistic, angelic, and benevolent superpower in history. I don't think that's a stretch at all. As for people who think differently, I'll point out that there is plenty of anti-americanism to go around - but who gets called when there is a crisis? Oh right, the US. Who gets criticized for intervening (Bosnia) and not acting (Rwanda)? Oh right, the US. So I wouldn't base my perception of 'reality' on what 'people who think they know the truth' think.

 

No surprise hayes, but it just shows how desperate you are when you have to resort to the TRA as your "moral obligation" to intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan if it were to be in armed conflict with Mainland.

The Taiwan Relations Act is an obsolete Cold War relic that's irrelevant to the US national security in the post-Soviet Union world. In essence, it's a piece of legislative crap that's both logically and legally absurd.

As early as in February 1972 -- 7 years before the normalization of US-China relation in 1979 -- US acknowledged that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China, when it signed the joint statements with PRC on the official foreign policy views, also known as the Shanghai Communiqué. Neither US nor China has unilaterally changed this fundamental and pivotal principle on which the diplomatic relation between the two nations are based.

Never mind the provisions of the TRA stipulate that US shall only sell defensive weaponry to Taiwan, but not militarily intervene in case of conflict.

Never mind the old Mutual Defence Treaty between the US and ROC was quietly allowed to expire in 1980.

The legal absurdity of TRA is perhaps more noteworthy. Benevolent global hegemonists and/or humanitarian moralist interventionists insist that "The TRA morally obligates America by law to defend Taiwan." The question is, "Who gives you the right to obligate yourself in the first place?"

The Taiwan Relations Act was an act of US Congress. It is a domestic US law. It is not an international treaty, nor a UN resolution.

Does domestic American legislation, enacted unilaterally by the US government without the consent of the Chinese people, legitimize US abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining China's territorial integrity?

If the answer isn't immediately obvious to you, let me turn the question around.

Would domestic Chinese legislation, enacted unilaterally by the PRC government without the consent of the American people, legitimize PRC abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining America's territorial integrity?

For example, what would you think of a "Confederate Relations Act" authorizing China to provide military weaponry to the Confederate States of America in the event the Union used force to prevent southern secession in 1861?

How about an "Aztlan Relations Act" authorizing China to provide military weaponry to Republica del Norte secessionists in the event the US government used force to prevent Mexico from recovering territory lost in 1842?

By meddling China's internal affair and by aligning itself with the rabid secessionist knuckleheads in Taiwan, the US shows to the world it has total disregard to the will of the democratic majority on Taiwan, and the 1.3 billion patriotic citizens of PRC on Mainland. It's not only amoral, it's anti-democratic, and it's immoral.

The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act isn't even worth discussion. Last time I checked, because of the oppositions from many Asian Pacific and Taiwan security experts in the US, the Orwellian TSEA wasn't put on the Senate floor for a vote and it was opposed by both the previous and current administration in the White House.

As a side note to you, Hayes, when you quote a source, better make sure it's somewhat neutral if not supremely unbiased. The Taiwan secessionist-run Taiwandc.org and Wufi.org are even close to this consideration.

My apology for giving you too much credit on your logical and legalistic reasoning abilities, and your well-versed knowledge on China and Taiwan affairs. Your neocon mentor Donald Rumsfeld has perhaps summed it up best for you:

"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know".

 

LOL, you're just silly. Your ability to go off on a tangent won't help you. Whether or not its 'legally absurd' in your opinion is completely irrelevent to our discussion. The point of contention between us is whether or not there is a moral component to our alliance and support of Taiwan. The TRA goes to show that indeed there is a moral concern, namely the opinion of the US government that Taiwan has a right to continue to live uncoerced by the PRC. Further, the quotes from Feldman go to show the state of mind of the US government and clearly shows a moral intent on its part. It shows a perspective far away from that of the 'realist.'

None of this addresses the point of contention which is whether the US governments relation with Taiwan has a moralistic component. If you want to argue about Taiwan/US relations re: the PRC that's fine but your ramblings above are off point in the extreme.

Considering the quotes are reprints of a US piece of legislation and a direct quote from a US official, the bias of the organization (if there IS such a bias) is of no consequence, doofus.

Hmmmm, you attribute a grand generalization to me based on a specific comment I made. I point out your leap was NOT logical, and MY reasoning is lacking? That's rich.

 

Hey fuuckwit, I've been patient with you but you have shown nothing substantive at all to dispute my arguments against the "morals" you are trying clinging on:

- the nonexistent "democracy" in Taiwan at the times when various acts were passed;
- the historical "disloyalty" to a supposed ally when time was getting tough;
- the illogicalness and the illegitimacy of TRA.

Other than serving US' own self interest, how much sugar coating and how thick smoke screen you need to defend the "morals" of its foreign policies, especially when it comes to Taiwan?

It's like telling a hooker's child his mother is actually a w****, the kid of course won't admit since he has to suck on mommy's t*tties to survive. He believes everything mom told him and regards her as a saint.

 

Poor wnes, can't make an on point answer so now you're just babbling. What a suprise. I've answered each of your relevant 'arguments' as sparse as they were. If the image of the China backing down whenever the 7th Fleet appears in the Taiwan Straits offends your PRC sensibilities, then I can't really say I'm too sorry about that.

 

LOL, hayes, if that makes you feel better, so be it. Since Taiwan didn't really declare independence, there was no need for PRC to get involved in any military confrontation with US at the time. Yes you have the bragging rights and you are perfectly right about the military might of US, but a realistic question is how much casualty US is willing to take for an illegitimate war. If you were the President of USA and command-in-chief, you'd better lay out more enticing incentives than "we are fighting for democracy" as American GIs were to put their lives at the great risks. Considering the situation in Iraq right now, maybe you should think about enlisting huh?

Back to the previous discusses, no you have not refuted anything I said with regard to the lack of "morals" in US Taiwan policies.

 

Wnes, your 'yes I did, no you didn't' responses are childlike. I posted direct quotes from US legislation and US officials, lol. I pointed out that a realist would have abandoned Taiwan long ago. We have your opinion with NO warrants vs written US law, insight of US officials, and the distinctions between realism and idealism/moralism. As they say in Beijing, you've got jack and **** - and jack left town.

 

Rubbish. Try again from here: US was protecting Taiwan because it was a democracy to begin with ...

I give you a hint, what's a marial law?

They say in Beijing? Again you are pulling something straight from your arse ...

 

I think you slightly misunderstand my point. Perhaps in comparison to other superpowers or comparable superpowers the US has been the "most" moralistic (although while I agree it is more moralistic than other potential superpowers like Nazi Germany or the USSR, I don't think it is any more moralistic than the British Empire but I digress). That however doesn't mean that it would be correct to claim that US policy is primarily or predominantly based on moralistic concerns rather than self-interest or that the US is without "sin" in conducting foreign policy. That is my only point. If you agree than we are not in fundamental disagreement so no need to argue further on this.

There are SOME (not saying YOU per se) Americans that do however think that. And of course this is largely in part due to US govt rhetoric and propaganda about how US goes all the things it does for "freedom", "democracy", blah blah blah. Is there some truth to it. Sure. But it sure is nowhere true in proportion to the rhetoric. I assume you are aware of American history from the days of all lands seized from natives to more recent history of all the thugs and oppressive regimes like the Sandanistas, Pinochet, Mugabe, etc including now Pakistan and much of the Middle East that the US is driven largely by self-interest not morality.

As far as this whole stuff regarding Taiwan is concerned that both you and wnes are arguing about, I think its pretty clear that the US largely supported Taiwan for a variety of reasons but much of it was for geopolitical reasons as a counter to China. Taiwan was not a democracy until very recently so it certainly was not because it was in support of "freedom" or "democracy". The US supports Taiwan (now democractic but until recently itself repressive) the same reason it supports the repressive regimes of Pakistan and much of the Middle East, because it serves US interests not because of "morality".

 

I never said it was a democracy to begin with - again you assert a position I didn't take to lamely try and make your argument.

Hmmm, I don't know. Something to do with a woman named Marial? Or do you mean martial law? Being the PRCs biggest fan I'm sure you know about that, lol.

No - I don't think they really say that in Beijing, lol.

 

I think we're on the same page.

Agreed. This is true of every country IMO. Hell, look at wnes and his defense of the repressive regime in China.

I think you mean Somoza/the Contras, not the Sandinistas. Mugabe was not a US proxy. As I pointed out earlier while Kissinger allegedly gave tacit consent to Pinochet, Carter outright sanctioned Chile to get him to agree to a transition. As for the rest, yes - the US has actively acted with despots for self interest. Again that does NOT mean that Tigermission's claim - which is where I initially came into this thread - is supportable. Further, it is also true that a claim that our policy 'now' in the ME is in our self interest goes far to blur the lines between self interest and moralism. In other words, if expanding democracy IS in our interest, how do you determine whether the policy is motivated by self interest or by 'moralism?' 'Now' plenty of our FP in the ME is moralistic if you view our pressure on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to open up politically. Same goes for our pressure on the Syrians to stay out of Lebanon's politics. And some of those policies are bearing fruit especially in Egypt and Lebanon. So....I agree with your overall thesis - yes, the US is no saint. But just as you are put off by declarations of US sanctity, I am by overgeneralizations of our actions in the opposite direction.

It would be rare to isolate any particular policy as a product exclusively of one criteria or another, be it geopolitical, economic, or otherwise. Taiwan has never been, nor will it ever be, in a position to be a 'counter' to China. It is a thorn in their side and as such has geopolitical implications for us and the PRC. I won't deny such. However, to exclude morality from the equation is also a mistake. As I pointed out, a realist - or self interest - perspective would have engendered a move to abandon Taiwan long ago. Ironically that is exactly what Carter (probably our most 'moral' President) was going to do when the Congress reacted idealistically, or in my contention - morally. They wrote into law that the US would continue to protect Taiwan from PRC coercion, and more recently that Taiwan's democracy would be protected from Chinese encroachment. To be 'outraged' at the prospect of abandoning Taiwan, as Congress clearly was, is not a 'realist' perspective. Those decisions fly in the face of a 'self interest' or 'realist' perspective.

 

Does not fit your statement. You claim that we had 'toppled a democratic regime in favor of a despotic regime.' To 'topple' a regime it would have to be in power first.

Does not fit your statement. You claim that we had 'toppled a democratic regime in favor of a despotic regime.' To 'topple' a regime it would have to be in power first.

Does not fit your statement. You claim that we had 'toppled a democratic regime in favor of a despotic regime.' To 'topple' a regime it would have to be in power first.

Arguable: "There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh was neither purely military in nature nor did it lead to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. Technically, in fact, it led to the preservation of the constitution, which Mossadegh had been repeatedly neglecting during his term in office."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran

That's one.

Er, Guyana wasn't even an independent country until 1966 so again this doesn't fit your assertion. Further, he was removed militarily by Britain who suspended the Consitution and chose a new government.

So that's one (Guatemala), maybe two with Iran although that's arguable. Hell, I'll even throw in Chile for you! That's two, maybe three. That is a far cry from your assertion that our history was filled with democratic regimes we had toppled for despotic regimes. Further, as every single communist government post-WWII transformed into a totalitarian regime, with the arguable exception of the Sandinistas, it was hardly a choice of democracy vs despotism. I won't argue each of your scenarios although there is plenty of room to do so, because it is not really relevant to our dispute. However, to be fair you'd be much better off just admitting that your original statement was an exaggeration. I certainly do admit that we've supported despotic regimes.