Isn’t this just pandering to (indeed increasing) consumer fears?

Yes.

December 21, 2007 @ 6:57 am | Comment

Obama certainly went over the top on this one. While I agree that there should be “tougher U.S. inspections of Chinese imports (not only in the US, but everywhere), calling for a “ban [of] all toys made in China” is certainly going to far. As Raj said, there are Chinese companies that do care about consumers. They should be encouraged, not discriminated against.

December 21, 2007 @ 7:36 am | Comment

Hey, he could have suggested using CCP-style methods and called for a limited number of tough import licenses for US companies and yanking the import licenses of any company found to import substandard goods.

December 21, 2007 @ 8:10 am | Comment

Obama has made a couple of rash statements that bother me, and this is another. (Read the Paul Krugman columns on Obama’s troubling tendency to repeat misleading information.) Well, no one’s perfect, and let’s hope he clarifies this unfortunate remark.

Latest word is Edwards is poinsed for a serious comeback. (Famous last words.) I would love to see that.

December 21, 2007 @ 9:12 am | Comment

Edwards apparently is a lot of peoples’ “second choice” - the race is so tight that he could conceivably pull it off.

December 21, 2007 @ 10:23 am | Comment

Excellent, Raj; keep it up please,

December 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Comment

Great idea Obama….if the goal of such an asinine plan is to completely trash the American economy.

December 21, 2007 @ 11:54 am | Comment

Obama is either an idiot or pandering to the idiocy of populists.

December 21, 2007 @ 12:43 pm | Comment

Now how would this trash the American economy? (As if the SIVs and CDOs and Greenspan’s multiple asset inflation bubbles haven’t already done that.) And raj, all experimentation with The Prisoner’s Dilemma proves that tit for tat is a good thing, the optimal approach for gamesmanship between two parties, not to be avoided via surrendering your negotiating leverage before negotiations even begin.

Secondly, what happened to the rest of Obama’s comments? After reading the whole thing it became clear the journalists focused on the most outrageous point, which is the ban and the blogosphere picked that up but promptly and wholly ignored the parts where Obama said the biggest part of the problem was with the Busheviks’ gutting the Consumer Product Safety Commission due to lobbying from the toy importers, who love quality products so much they want you to trust them in place of accountability via government oversight.

December 21, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Comment

Obama got one problem. He is a smoker! Personally, I view that as a character flaw :). I hate smokers.

December 21, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

“if the goal of such an asinine plan is to completely trash the American economy”

Typical propaganda from foreign chambers of commerce and the general expat community.

Such a ban would force outsourcers to relocate to other countries. Prices would go up, then come back down but not to their China levels. But hey, Americans need to save more anyways.

I say bring the ban! No one really cares what happens to the China expat community anyways.

December 21, 2007 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

I say bring the ban! No one really cares what happens to the China expat community anyways.

nanhe, you slay me.

But, these are the same morans that told us that great benefits would come to the US economy from lifting quotas on Chinese produced textiles and shoes. How’s that working out? Some US economic boom, Bush and free trade has brought about, huh? Great economic concessions in VP Wu Yi allowing some minority owned joint ventures from a few CCP-approved US investment banks.

Not that I’m a big fan of quotas, but the Randroid religionists peddling the nonsense that removing all government impediments to trade will bring about a utopia or instituting more impediments to trade will bring about hell on earth is crap.

When the quotas were in place, what nanhe was describing happened. Americans don’t seem to be saving a lot of money on clothing from the time it was being shipped and retagged in places like Hong Kong or Mexico or being made in Vietnam or Cambodia to bypass the quotas.

December 21, 2007 @ 3:20 pm | Comment

that’s ridiculous. certainly china needs to tighten up at its end, but then so does the us. this is the sort of ill thought out bollocks that makes me worried about all of the us presidential candidates. as a european, and therefore mainly focused on us foreign policy, i see little good in any of them

December 21, 2007 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

The original article is typical bad journalism (see its headline). He’s saying that the US should have inspectors in Chinese factories, which they should. He’s not saying eliminate all toys from coming in, he’s saying get it right and let them enter.

I love the pro-Edwards comments. That guy thinks that all toys should be made in the US because he can’t explain to people why manufacturing isn’t competitive in the US.

They talked about this extensively at the NPR debate a few weeks ago (30 minutes actually). You can listen here

December 21, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Comment

After Obama raises the minimum wage to $100/hour and invades Pakistan, he can try this one. Here’s my advice: appoint a commission and a raise a pile of dough by gutting the report when the players pay up. That’s how Al Gore ran his airline safety commission.

December 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Comment

Richard

Edwards would not be good for the US unless one doesn’t care a jot about the outside world and would be happy to see wars spring up. The man clearly does not have a rational grasp of foreign policy, as can be seen by his comments on Taiwan.

Though it’s questionable as to how or when the US would intervene militarily, to say he would never send American forces to help out is to give the Chinese an unnecessary advantage and make them less likely to make real compromise to avoid conflict. Ultra-nationalism in China has been on the rise for many years - already there are many Chinese generals and even politicians who actually want a war to both deal with Taiwan once-and-for-all and show the world that China is destined to be the number 1 power.

A peaceful solution can only be accomplished by America being ambiguous over how it would help Taiwan - to ensure the island doesn’t take advantage of a concrete security guarantee but ensure China would avoid attacking on a pretext.

The US isn’t the world’s policeman, but to leave vulnerable democracies to the whim of autocracies like China is dishonorable and foolish. An Asia totally dominated by China would not be good for the US by any stretch of the imagination- that will probably happen if Taiwan is successfully invaded by Beijing.

Furthermore no country would ever trust the US again, because it would have been demonstrated that any guarantee, treaty, etc relating to defence would be worthless as Washington would pull out whenever it felt it was convenient. If Bush damaged US foreign policy by invading Iraq, Edwards would finish the job by indicating any alliance or agreement with America wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on.

If you don’t think that would hurt the US, imagine how many trade and energy deals are secured by direct or implicit promises of military assistance if things go wrong. In the future resources will become more scarce America will need that influence - without it that oil, gas, timber et al will go to countries like China and the US economy would suffer from soaring prices.

It might not seem fair that Edwards’ foreign policy naivity should disqualify him from running, but there are some things every leader must get “right”. Otherwise you’re gambling with your country’s future.

December 21, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Comment

Edwards for president! He has always been my No. 1 favorite, though I decided to formally endorse Obama several months ago when I was convinced Edwards couldn’t win. Maybe I will be happily surprised and change my mind.

I love Taiwan, so much that I am going there in two weeks. I trust Edwards (or Obama or Dodd) to have the integrity and intellectual honesty if elected to do the right thing. I can point to things to rip in every candidate, but I am not going to decide based on a Taiwan litmus test. I didn’t like Clinton’s policies toward China, but I still consider him one of our great presidents (certainly of my lifetime). Edwards would be even greater. Please everyone, especially my large pool of Iowa and New Hampshire voters, vote for Edwards in the caucuses/primary and help get America back on track again.

December 21, 2007 @ 7:51 pm | Comment

Richard, the problem is that Edwards would need to retract his earlier comments quite quickly. If he doesn’t then China would never believe him even if later on he did say he might help Taiwan out.

I have a feeling, though, that he doesn’t want to retract them because he’s a pacifist at heart. If he does, please let me know.

December 21, 2007 @ 8:56 pm | Comment

I think Edwards’ previous comments are an example of the lack of consideration the Democrats have put forward in regards to the Taiwan problem. The debate in the US is in many ways dominated by Republicans, conservatives and other similar figures, as Michael Turton has said many times. You can see that as, if I remember correctly, most of the major Republican candidates have a generally positive message for Taiwan.

On the other hand, I have a feeling that the Democrat candidates don’t really know what they should do or say - I would suggest that Edwards said what he did because he was “defaulting” to his belief in avoiding conflict, without actually thinking things through that he was effectively giving China the green light to invade and in doing so might cause a war some day.

Obama talks about “maintaining the status quo”, which as Michael T has often said is impossible because China changes it every day when it points more missiles at the island and insists that talks with the islanders can only occur by agreeing with the one-China principle (which removes one of Taiwan’s biggest negotiating points - that it could declare independence, but might pass that up for full autonomy). Clinton maybe is the best of a bad bunch, though she’s also vague.

Democrats need to think their foreign policy through and not potentially paint themselves into a corner by doing the modern equivalent of saying “peace in our time” just to get more votes for the nomination. Even if a US president pledged not to get involved in a Taiwan war, the situation might spiral out of control where the US would simply have to do something. If the Democrats want to govern again they can’t neglect an important issue like this. One of the Bush administration’s foreign policy failings was to drop the ball on Taiwan due to its concern over Iraq. If the next president does the same then things could destabilise in East Asia next decade.

December 21, 2007 @ 9:42 pm | Comment

I thought Richard had donated for Obama.

December 21, 2007 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

Fatbrick, as I said above, I did endorse Obama and asked readers to donate to him. Edwards was always my favorite, but Obama was a “pragmatic” choice - I felt, and still feel, he is more electable. I am surprised at and delighted at Edwards’ resurgence, and I am hoping both of them do well - and end up as a ticket.

Raj, Republicans may say a lot of things that intoxicate the Taiwan-independence crowd. When push comes to shove, however, they would never, ever offend the MNCs for whom China is the Second Coming, at least when it comes to cheap labor. I’m not sure whether the Dems are much better, but please don’t have any illusions that the Grand Old Party feels any genuine allegiance to Taiwan.

December 21, 2007 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

please don’t have any illusions that the Grand Old Party feels any genuine allegiance to Taiwan

I never said that they did. I merely suggested that they pay much more attention to the issue than the Democrats do.

Could someone do me a favour and find out precisely what Edwards has definitely said (if anything) on Taiwan? I can’t find the previous articles I read - I don’t want to have misread what he said, given richard thinks highly of him.

December 21, 2007 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

Also, please don’t forget China is a nuclear power that can wipe us out from the face of the earth (I mean we will do that same, too). So don’t worry about Taiwan, there is no debate. WE WILL NOT HELP TAIWAN MILITARILY (at least not directly involved).

December 22, 2007 @ 1:35 am | Comment

Oh…also for the self-determination crowd…here is a news for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html

http://users.dma.ucla.edu/~estevancarlos/images/lakotanation.jpg

I am very curious on what are we going to do to them.

December 22, 2007 @ 1:55 am | Comment

Also, please don’t forget China is a nuclear power that can wipe us out from the face of the earth

China would never use them unless it was actually invaded and had no other choice, or attacked by nuclear weapons by another power.

The belief China would use nuclear weapons if the US helped Taiwan is a joke so ridiculous it’s actually sad, especially now that China is on the rise economically.

December 22, 2007 @ 2:26 am | Comment

The belief China would use nuclear weapons if the US helped Taiwan is a joke so ridiculous it’s actually sad, especially now that China is on the rise economically.

So if US and China a engage in a real fight. You don’t think the chance of either side “mistakenly” use the nuclear weapon greatly increased.” I don’t know why you think it is sad. I am simply pointing out that we and China will not engage at all. It will be like US invading Iraq. The international community may shout and cry about it in the media but nothing will be done. And as an American citizen I told you that it is not a war for us to fight (of course, it is my personal opinion).

December 22, 2007 @ 5:06 am | Comment

So if US and China a engage in a real fight. You don’t think the chance of either side “mistakenly” use the nuclear weapon greatly increased.”

How do you “mistakenly” use nuclear weapons?

China: “OOOPS! I meant to press the yellow button to fire some conventional missiles, but instead I pressed the red button and launched a nuclear strike.”

Don’t be foolish.

It will be like US invading Iraq.

No, it won’t because the US will actually be protecting a country instead of attacking it. For China it would be like the US invading Iraq, just much more difficult.

And as an American citizen I told you that it is not a war for us to fight

So when is it a war for you to fight? If the aggressive power is sufficiently weak that you can roll in and have the conflict over in a fortnight? When the victims are American expats? When the attacked state has lots of resources you need? Your attitude reminds me of what the US said in both the World Wars - “it’s not our fight”. Yet today America likes to brag it was the reason the Allies won both wars. Talk about hypocricy!

People like you do far more to damage America’s reputation than those who supported the war in Iraq. You could do with growing a little resolve and actually look to help countries for a change rather than just use them. One reason China pushes Taiwan around so much is that the State Department doesn’t have any backbone or honour. I really hope that whoever wins the 2008 election gets rid of the lot of them and puts in people who actually have some integrity.

December 22, 2007 @ 6:17 am | Comment

China: “OOOPS! I meant to press the yellow button to fire some conventional missiles, but instead I pressed the red button and launched a nuclear strike.”

No, it could be more like “screw this, my ship is sinking! I am launching the 2 nuclear missiles on my ship to where ever.” Or after suffer heavy damage the missile short it out and launch by itself.

So when is it a war for you to fight? If the aggressive power is sufficiently weak that you can roll in and have the conflict over in a fortnight? When the victims are American expats? When the attacked state has lots of resources you need? Your attitude reminds me of what the US said in both the World Wars - “it’s not our fight”. Yet today America likes to brag it was the reason the Allies won both wars. Talk about hypocricy!

That’s why we won both wars. We stay put until we are ready. Clearly, you don’t understand the logic. And sorry we never helped any country unless it is in our own interest, please get real. I am not ashame of saying it either. I hate some expats act so high and mighty while in reality they can’t even find a job in their own country (generalizing here sorry).

To answer your question: A war is only for us to fight that is when the aggressors attacking us directly in our land and on our soil. Following this rule we won’t even be in Iraq. Reputation is over rated. If I can come and kill you, trust me, you will show me all your respects.

Plus, why do we want to help some arrogant bastards who won’t even listen to us? My life worth more than they do (here I say it :P).

December 22, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Comment

“China would never use them unless it was actually invaded and had no other choice, or attacked by nuclear weapons by another power.”

Wrong, wrong wrong. China has informed the US Navy and Air force that an attack on any part of Chinese territory could possibly result in a nuclear strike, this comment came from the same camp of generals that issued the threat on LA.

And what constitutes Chinese territory in the eyes of the PLA? Airplanes, ships and subs. Not just land mass.

December 22, 2007 @ 1:25 pm | Comment

No, it could be more like “screw this, my ship is sinking! I am launching the 2 nuclear missiles on my ship to where ever.”

Nonsense. If China attacked Taiwan it would just learn to live with having lost it. Maybe 20 years ago that might have happened, but not with the progress it’s made now. It would be throwing it all away.

China can cope with territory loss - look at the deal they did with the Russians over what used to be the Chinese Far East.

That’s why we won both wars. We stay put until we are ready.

You didn’t win the first war - you rode on ours and the French coattails. For the second, you only got involved when you were attacked - you weren’t waiting until you were “ready”. That’s the pathetic self-justification for not doing something earlier when American support could have shortened the war and ensure fewer people suffered.

A war is only for us to fight that is when the aggressors attacking us directly in our land and on our soil.

So you were against stopping Saddam Hussein taking Kuwait? And you wouldn’t want to stop a hostile power or powers seizing all the countries that supply your oil and gas imports? That’s not your land or your soil.

Plus, why do we want to help some arrogant bastards who won’t even listen to us?

If you’re talking about the Taiwanese, one big problem is that you won’t talk to them directly. You insist in low-level talks, which means the top leaders can’t explain their positions easily and work things out. It’s like criticising your girlfriend for not staying in touch while overseas, yet when she does try to call you don’t want to talk to her face-to-face!

Furthermore the State Department never stops complaining, even if Taiwan has done something so trivial that it barely requires comment. Whereas China acts far more aggressively and tries to frequently change the “status-quo”, yet the State Department says little or nothing.

Time to drop the double-standards.

December 22, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

Reputation is over rated.

It isn’t if you’re affected by the backlash (terrorism) but to some neocon living the middle of nowhere being bombed isn’t a big threat.

Regardless, it’s not something that should be pissed away for nothing; but Iraq is a good place to invade and take over for its position and resources.

But hey, Americans need to save more anyways.

Right. Americans have a problem with always blaming everyone else for their problems; when people start seeing all the retards wasting money during the holiday season on crap maybe they will realize they’re simply spending too much; not that some overworked peasant in China is a “trade cheat”.

But as long as American consumers want toys, cheap clothing, shoes, electronics, etc etc they will have a deficit.

December 22, 2007 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

“That’s the pathetic self-justification for not doing something earlier when American support could have shortened the war and ensure fewer people suffered.” Raj

??So the U.S. is to blame for MORE deaths because they didn’t join sooner? No proof in that.

Maybe you and yours should have done something to prevent it from happening in the first place! Far fewer deaths that way:)

This was about toys and now it goes back to WWI and II?!

December 22, 2007 @ 9:38 pm | Comment

China can cope with territory loss - look at the deal they did with the Russians over what used to be the Chinese Far East.

I don’t think China can cope with it. If China allow Taiwan to gain independence, the central government will appear weak. Southern China and NE China will probably think of leaving, too.

You didn’t win the first war

Well, we sure made tons of money selling supplies and goods to Euro. Some countries in Europe are still paying that debate for you information. English just finish paying back to us last year (?) it was on the news.

So you were against stopping Saddam Hussein taking Kuwait? And you wouldn’t want to stop a hostile power or powers seizing all the countries that supply your oil and gas imports? That’s not your land or your soil.

First go ask Ron Paul that (note: I hate Ron Paul but he does got some good points). Second, we have bee accused of letting Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait because Kuwait before the invasion was been difficult. Third, do you know our top five oil import countries only Saudi Arabia made the list for the middle east country? By your logic, maybe we should go invade Venezuela who threaten to cut us off for its oil.

If you’re talking about the Taiwanese, one big problem is that you won’t talk to them directly.

Well first here is a quote from Manuel Noriega:

“History has shown us that the United States does not look for allies but rather subjects; it doesn’t make friends, but rather creates slaves.”

Why do we have to talk to Taiwan directly? Taiwan is the one HOPING we defend them when the S#it hits the fan, at least show some respects. Girlfriend logic doesn’t work so well here because the relationship is more like master sand slaves (hate to tell you this but this is what the State department is thinking).

This was about toys and now it goes back to WWI and II?!

Because it has something to do with our foreign policies. Apparently, some people still think we, the US, will act in justice instead our own interests. No no no, our own interests always win over truth and justice. How many time do I have to repeat it? We are not going to ban China toys because it is cheap. Also, it is almost impossible to ban it because you can just reship from a secondary port. When someone can produce a cheaper toy than China, trust me, we will buy from them. If you really care about safety, enforce the inspection on our end. I work in a industry (biotech) with zero margin on safety, the company I work with make all their drug candidates in China. You inspect, inspect again, and re-inspect the facilities (approved by US FDA; yet we still send people over) and the drugs that are been produced are good stuffs for more than half the cost.

December 23, 2007 @ 1:13 am | Comment

Raj,

I know the Taiwan issue makes you excited. From what I observed and heard on visits to China, I think China should not rule Taiwan (and fortunely, that’s not happening), at least not before China really changes in some inportant areas. Still, Taiwan should not be allowed to go independent.

If the US does according to what you suggest, it will probbaly go into a war with China over Taiwan. With the mess in Iraq and the current credit crisis, how many more wars can the US afford to flight before it goes bankrupt? I personally care more about whether the government has more money to install air-conditioners in my kid’s school during the summer.

December 23, 2007 @ 4:55 am | Comment

So the U.S. is to blame for MORE deaths because they didn’t join sooner? No proof in that.

It’s well accepted that if the US had been a part of the League of Nations greater pressure could have been brought on countries like Japan, Germany and Italy before war broke out. The US chickened out because, as usual, the voters went through an isolationist phase - which ironically allowed Japan to carry on unchecked in the early stages because the US wasn’t willing to impose trade embargoes. When it ended up doing so it was too late to stop the Japanese.

I don’t think China can cope with it. If China allow Taiwan to gain independence, the central government will appear weak. Southern China and NE China will probably think of leaving, too.

Please, that’s the usual CCP propaganda. The government would look pragmatic and peace-loving if it played its cards right. The only way it would look weak is if it had boycotted talks with Taiwan first.

There is no significant independence-movement in south or north-east China.

Why do we have to talk to Taiwan directly?

Because you want them to listen to you?

By your logic, maybe we should go invade Venezuela who threaten to cut us off for its oil.

You obviously have trouble reading basic English - you need a better pair of glasses or to return to the 1st grade.

I asked whether you would let an oil-producing country you rely on be invaded by another country (that you couldn’t trust) and occupied. If you’re telling me that the US shouldn’t even protect allies that keep it going then you really are nuts.

Apparently, some people still think we, the US, will act in justice instead our own interests. No no no, our own interests always win over truth and justice.

I never said the US should act against its interests - I said that it is in the US’ interest to make China think it would defend Taiwan.

With the mess in Iraq and the current credit crisis, how many more wars can the US afford to flight before it goes bankrupt?

You’re rather misunderstanding potential US involvement in a Taiwan war. Not a single US soldier would set foot on Taiwanese (or Chinese) soil. It would be a purely air/naval operation that would be over relatively quickly one way or another, as one side would run out of key assets. If enough Chinese troops landed on Taiwan, the US couldn’t dislodge them. If enough of the Chinese navy was sunk/Chinese airforce shot down, China would have to withdraw.

I personally care more about whether the government has more money to install air-conditioners in my kid’s school during the summer.

With all due respect, if your child found out in later life that you had traded America’s standing and influence in Asia along with the freedom of 23 million people in a democratic state for air-conditioners, I think you would not be the grandparent of choice for visiting during the US holidays.

I understand what you mean, but you could have thought up some basic essentials instead of luxuries. And however hot it is in your neck-of-the -woods in summer, an air-conditioner is a luxury.

December 23, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Comment

You obviously have trouble reading basic English - you need a better pair of glasses or to return to the 1st grade.

I asked whether you would let an oil-producing country you rely on be invaded by another country (that you couldn’t trust) and occupied. If you’re telling me that the US shouldn’t even protect allies that keep it going then you really are nuts.

Go read some background story on Kuwait invasion. Kuwait is not exactly in our favor before the invasion. I like how you emphasizing “oil-producing country.” We trust Iraq before the invasion where do you think they get their weapons from including the chemical weapons that they use to kill their own people. Oh wait, they are made in good old USA.

Btw, it does not take an invasion to have a “oil-producing” country change to a government that you don’t trust. They can simply get sick of our greedy @sses and kick us out like Venezuela and Nigeria. Wait, I think Iran did that, too.

You’re rather misunderstanding potential US involvement in a Taiwan war. Not a single US soldier would set foot on Taiwanese (or Chinese) soil. It would be a purely air/naval operation that would be over relatively quickly one way or another, as one side would run out of key assets.

Raj, a lot of people think like that for the current Iraq war, too. Never mind that, don’t forget Taiwan is inside the so call brown water range for China, and it’s a freaking pacific ocean for us. We are out numbered at least 5 to 1 (based on jet fighters), and even our pilots and fighters are way better. I still don’t think we can win. Just ask the TOP GUN pilots in my town, he said there is no way he can fight a 5:1 on air even against a J-7 square. Yes I live in SD, although, he does admit wearing their jackets are very popular with the ladies.

December 24, 2007 @ 2:07 am | Comment

Wrong, wrong wrong. China has informed the US Navy and Air force that an attack on any part of Chinese territory could possibly result in a nuclear strike, this comment came from the same camp of generals that issued the threat on LA.

Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan at December 22, 2007 01:25 PM

Please tell me the source, I’m surprised that my fellowmen haven’t marched to celebrate PLA’s brave statement yet.

December 24, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Comment

We trust Iraq before the invasion

In the 1980s when it was facing off against Iran. Relations soured after that.

They can simply get sick of our greedy @sses and kick us out like Venezuela

Venezuela had an election, which people have to respect. Similarly if a party was elected to power in Taiwan that wanted immediate unification and it controlled enough power in the legislative, etc again the US should respect that.

Raj, a lot of people think like that for the current Iraq war, too.

Really? I can’t say I heard anyone credible suggest that for Iraq. If you are going to occupy a country, strangely enough you need troops to do that.

On the other hand the US doesn’t have enough ground troops in the area to repel a Chinese invasion force. That’s why its involvement in Taiwan would come from the USN and USAF.

We are out numbered at least 5 to 1 (based on jet fighters)

Arty, this is not Royal Rumble. In war you do not put all of one nation’s airforce into a cage with another’s. You need to look at things like how many airbases the other side has, where they are, etc.

The J-7 has a short range so even if it were based in range of Taiwanese targets it would not have a long loiter time. Plus it is not capable compared to US planes, or even the Taiwanese-designed Indigenous Defence Fighter.

Other Chinese jets are better, but there are not so many of them as there are J-7s. Also, China is not going to bleed itself dry over Taiwan. It would keep a strategic reserve of assets such as planes to ensure a neighbour couldn’t take advantage of it.

December 24, 2007 @ 6:34 pm | Comment

China will take military action against Taiwan when the balence of forces is favorable and not before. Taiwan has been independent for a long time. A declaration would just be a piece of paper. This is going to inspire provinces on the mainland to break away? Please.

There is no Chinese public opinion about Taiwan that needs to be pandered to. Chinese “accepted the leadership of the CCP.” If you talk to Chinese about Taiwan, it’s all “We think this” and “We believe this.” They don’t take personal responsibility for any opinion. They just regurgitate what CCTV has told them. Taiwan was non-issue back in the 1980s. It was revived in 1989 because of Tiananmen. You will never hear ordinary Chinese call for immediate military action or say that the official line isn’t tough enough.

Even if the Chinese people really did have a strong view about Taiwan, it’s been established more than once that the leadership doesn’t give a rat’s behind what they think. Losing a war would have far more serious consequences than would defying public opinion.

Chinese military strategy toward Taiwan focuses on missiles, which China wouldn’t bother with if it really believed it had air superiority. Taiwan has far better pilot training than China does and will therefore retain an edge even after China obtains the advanced Russian fighters it plans to buy. In any case, the success of the Israeli raid on Syria last September suggests that the effectiveness of Russian military equipment has been grossly overrated.

December 24, 2007 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

In the 1980s when it was facing off against Iran. Relations soured after that.

No, the relation soured after Iran refuse to retreat from Kuwait. How about google April Catherine Glaspie and see what she told Iraq before the invasion. US is playing exactly the same card between Taiwan and China with exception of China been a nuclear power hence the warning from US to Taiwan.

Venezuela had an election, which people have to respect.

Funny, all the sudden you left Iran out. They have a revolution against a US supported tyrant, and we still don’t show them any respect. Wait, what did our intelligence reported on Iran just told us: “Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program.” It was all over the news. How does our government react to its own report? No, you are still evil, Iran!
Arty, this is not Royal Rumble. In war you do not put all of one nation’s airforce into a cage with another’s. You need to look at things like how many airbases the other side has, where they are, etc.

First, I don’t know you are such an optimist, Raj. When I am facing an enemy, I will never assume my equipments are better or my pilots are much better trained than my enemy. I will also not assume the best possible outcome i.e. there is no way in hell China will attack. You reminds me of some left wing talk show hosts stating that we do not have a society security problem as long as we stay at 5% GDP growth and using last 20 years as an example (historically 3% nominal is the conservative estimate that’s why government and most smart economist will use; he is way over optimistic). Btw, I am a liberal that why I am listen to Air America but sometimes even the left plss me off. The real question is what if China attacks Taiwan, not don’t worry China won’t.

Second, if you look at the number of bases we have vs what China has, the situation is even worse. J-7 is short range relatively speaking, it could be on top of Taiwan within 20 mins and stay on air for hours. Also, jet travels fast, you can move into position for a critical battle for a day or two. Once you destroyed majority of enemies’ air force, the war is over. If someone is planning to invade East Coast of the US, you are telling me we are not moving majority of our air force to the East especially they can all be there within 5 hours.

Third, the is for Peter Kauffner, have you look at the J-10 design? It is a Western design thanks to Israel selling it to China. Rumor has it, Israel also transfered stealth technology to China, too. China is developing its own native technology which look to me more like a hybrid of both sides. Using missile is only for the beginning, just like what we, US, always do. You first weaken enemies physical defense by shock them into submission. Even for missiles to launch, you still need to have some form of air support. Do you know how many land to land missile sites we took out before they even had a chance to launch in the desert storm and the Iraq war?

December 25, 2007 @ 8:49 am | Comment

US is playing exactly the same card between Taiwan and China

You’re obviously smoking some good shit, because no one in their right minds could claim that’s the case.

Funny, all the sudden you left Iran out. They have a revolution against a US supported tyrant, and we still don’t show them any respect.

A revolution isn’t an election. You can argue that the former can be justified in some cases, but if fair and free the latter always is.

When I am facing an enemy, I will never assume my equipments are better or my pilots are much better trained than my enemy.

ROFL, you really do know jack-shit about military affairs - don’t you? Technological superiority is something very important and far from being guess-work. You don’t bank everything on that, but it is a key factor when assessing combat capabilities.

there is no way in hell China will attack

Please do not make nonsense up - I did not say that once on this thread.

J-7 is short range relatively speaking, it could be on top of Taiwan within 20 mins and stay on air for hours.

The idea that a J-7 could operate over Taiwan for hours is complete drivel.

Also, jet travels fast, you can move into position for a critical battle for a day or two.

And lose the element of surprise, because it will be detected.

It is a Western design thanks to Israel selling it to China.

No, it’s a Chinese design allegedly using Western technology - how much is unverified.

Rumor has it, Israel also transfered stealth technology to China, too.

Rumour has it that the world is subject to a UN shadow government under the global Jewish conspiracy. There are thousands of rumours concerning military matters, none of which mean anything.

China is developing its own native technology

Wow, I’m so impressed - native technology!!!!

December 25, 2007 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

Since when did this turn into yet another Taiwan pissing contest?

December 26, 2007 @ 12:42 am | Comment

Since when did this turn into yet another Taiwan pissing contest?

Soon enough.

It is like Godwin’s law.

ROFL, you really do know jack-shit about military affairs - don’t you? Technological superiority is something very important and far from being guess-work. You don’t bank everything on that, but it is a key factor when assessing combat capabilities.

Look at how much good they did to German and Japan :). I am simply stating don’t under estimate your enemies. My cousin is in the US military intelligence. His prediction is worst then mine.

Regardless who win. Taiwan will come out worse end of it because its economy and society will be destroyed. Of course, you expats can just run to other countries and blog about how them :).

December 26, 2007 @ 9:00 am | Comment

“Rumour has it that the world is subject to a UN shadow government under the global Jewish conspiracy.”

Ah ha! Not just any old Jew…..Rumour has it that
approximately 85 - 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia….And so the rumor does and that’s how rumors are started.

December 26, 2007 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

“I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives and hardship borne.” _Barack Obama.

December 26, 2007 @ 1:40 pm | Comment

On Peking duck, China:
Arty: China is developing its own native technology
Raj: Wow, I’m so impressed - native technology!!!!

Meanwhile….somewhere in America

LM: We spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could write in space. Do you know what the Russians did?
JL: Used a pencil?
LM: Used a pencil.

December 26, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Comment

In terms of the Cold War, Iraq was a Soviet ally. Saddam’s army always used Russian equipment. There was a moment in 1986 when it looked like Iran might break through, so the U.S. provided some assistance to Saddam. Saddam’s air force attacked the USS Stark in 1987. He was also a major sponsor of Abu Nidal, the big man of terrorism at that time. In private, he would tell people that Stalin was his role model. I can’t believe he ever thought of the US as his friend.

Saddam attacked Kuwait for the same reason he attacked Iran — to steal the county’s oil! Glaspie told him something and that made him invade? What is she, Svengali?

As far as the J-10 goes, Israel pulled out of the project many years ago. After that, the plane was redesigned to use Russian techology.

December 26, 2007 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

My cousin is in the US military intelligence. His prediction is worst then mine.

And my uncle’s friend’s son’s wife is a big cheese is GCHQ, who says that China has developed a death ray!!!

I never trust comments made by relatives or friends of others. People high enough up the food chain don’t get there by bragging to their relatives about what they know from classified information. Those that do brag usually make armchair statements based on their own ignorance and use their job as a means of giving them credibility.

Regardless who win. Taiwan will come out worse end of it because its economy and society will be destroyed.

But it will be rebuilt and Taiwanese identity will be stronger than ever. Furthermore the US Congress would be up-in-arms and enact as much pro-Taiwan legislation as it could. Other countries would drop their ambiguous positions over Taiwan and be more supportive of the island given China caused the conflict.

On the other hand China’s “peaceful rise” mantra would be shatter and the country seen as a belligerent bully - no one would trust it for decades. Its own economy would be damaged as foreign investment pulled out or slowed (such as the upwards of $150 billion Taiwan has in China). And if it lost the war then the public would probably be so outraged that the CCP would at best have to implement political reform - at worst be swept from power. If the public was generally calm then Beijing would have to admit that its desire to gain Taiwan had nothing to do with public unrest.

Of course, you expats can just run to other countries and blog about how them

Who said I was an expat?

Anyway, that was nice symmetry how you started and ended talking complete dribble.

December 26, 2007 @ 8:11 pm | Comment

Anyway, that was nice symmetry how you started and ended talking complete dribble.

Thanks. It is a blog just in case you don’t get it. Of course, any post will end up in complete dribble because it doesn’t mean anything :).

Who said I was an expat?

Then, I hope you volunteer to seat at front line for the invasion :).

But it will be rebuilt and Taiwanese identity will be stronger than ever. Furthermore the US Congress would be up-in-arms and enact as much pro-Taiwan legislation as it could. Other countries would drop their ambiguous positions over Taiwan and be more supportive of the island given China caused the conflict.

Speak like a true Taiwanese. I respect your guts (that’s if you are one). However, trust me, you will pay your life for it if the war ever come. Of course, based on history, Taiwanese is more likely to surrender and became subject of a greater power the moment when you start killing them :). You see Dutch .did it, Chinese did it, Japan did it.

Saddam attacked Kuwait for the same reason he attacked Iran — to steal the county’s oil! Glaspie told him something and that made him invade? What is she, Svengali?

No, is what she didn’t told Saddam. Also, at the same time, Kuwait kind of p.o. us. So it look like we did it intentionally to teach Kuwait a lesson. We trust Saddam enough to give him chemical weapons. So I don’t see where is your argument. Also, don’t forget the picture we have of Rumesfeld holding hands with him (a big happy family).

December 27, 2007 @ 12:36 am | Comment

If Glaspie really tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait, we can all be grateful. If the guy wasn’t such a dumbass, he would have waited until his nuclear program got further along.

The U.S. gave Saddam chemical weapons? In that case, he sure got shafted. He used mustard gas against the Kurds — that’s WWI technology. Maybe he should have put his money into biplanes and Gatling guns.

December 27, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Comment

If Glaspie really tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait, we can all be grateful. If the guy wasn’t such a dumbass, he would have waited until his nuclear program got further along.

The U.S. gave Saddam chemical weapons? In that case, he sure got shafted. He used mustard gas against the Kurds — that’s WWI technology. Maybe he should have put his money into biplanes and Gatling guns.

Are you even listen to yourself talking. After we invaded Iraq, we didn’t even find the tubings that Iraq suppose to have to make the ultracentrifuge (you know the huge steel tubing that can only be hold in huge buildings; it is very easy to find if Iraq actually have a nuclear program). So I don’t know what you mean by Iraq nuclear program. Do you know why we know Iran is trying to enrich uranium? Iran not only ordered them but we have picture to show that they are built already. However, based on our own report, Iran is not using the uranium for weapons (i.e. probably because it is not weapon grade). Oh btw, nuclear weapon is WWII. Just because its old technology, does not mean it is not effective and have not been improved on. I mean Jet planes are WWII, so is rocket science (more then 60 years ago). So how about the WWI mustard gas…

The original mustard gas is Bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide. The mustard gas has evolved from long ago. My personal favor is the nitrogen kind (if you have lymphoma; your doctor will give you grams of these stuff for you to eat even today). Personally, I don’t know what kinds mustard gas our government has in stock (they are all from the late 70s), but I am pretty sure it is improved greatly especially in its delivery. The development didn’t stop until the late 70s. That’s when the US government decided to shift their focuses on making better chemical and biological weapons to making better preventive measures and cures for the chemical and the biological weapons. Also, Jimmy Carter was the President. He also banned the deployment of neutron warheads (my favor weapon: single block destruction, miles of devastation) but Regan reversed Carter’s order.

December 27, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

It’s not just jets and rockets either. I’ve got news for you: The wheel is 8,000 years old and it’s still rolling strong! I never stated or implied that mustard gas was ineffective. The point is, it is well-established technology. Pretty much any country can make it.

Iraq had a secret nuclear weapons program until 1995, when Hussein Kamel al Majid defected and revealed it. Even after that, Saddam kept nuclear plans, personal, and equipment so that the program could be restarted as soon as sanctions were lifted (something he always expected to happened soon).

As far as the NIE on Iran goes, there is a notorious footnote in the report, footnote No. 1. This footnote states that the report does not count either uranium enrichment or dual use technology as part Iran’s nuclear weapons program. These two items are what a nuclear weapons program is all about! The writers are just playing word games. There’s really nothing new in the report. The Israelis aren’t buying the new line. They are still planning to hit Iran.

December 27, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Comment

The point is, it is well-established technology. Pretty much any country can make it.

Really? Let’s see, how many country have ICBM. Damn, it is a well establish technology. Wait, how many country can launch Satellite into space? How about countries with nuclear weapons. Let’s say Taiwan, why they don’t make their own jet propulsion instead of buying from the US. How about car engine? Taiwan still can’t make it. Also, you must think making a chemical weapon is easy. The problem usually is not making it. The problem is how you can make it without killing yourself in the process.

Saddam kept nuclear plans, personal, and equipment so that the program could be restarted as soon as sanctions were lifted (something he always expected to happened soon).

Except we find none of the equipments…how do you explain that…prove me wrong though. Bush is trying really hard to show that at least Saddam is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

There’s really nothing new in the report. The Israelis aren’t buying the new line. They are still planning to hit Iran.

Sure they will, for a country that has the most nuclear weapons in the middle east probably the third in the world. Maybe Pat Robertson the wacko is right “Israel was made to be destroyed as the bible prophesied.”

December 28, 2007 @ 12:48 am | Comment

“Maybe Pat Robertson the wacko is right “Israel was made to be destroyed as the bible prophesied.”

Really? Pat Robertson said,”Israel is made to be destroyed”?
Then Pat Robertson should be stoned to death for being a heretic.
The whole point of the bible is that “the chosen people,” is the reason that the world is still here and will be saved by a god-sent Messiah, and Israel is the holy covenant of the future Kingdom of God on earth.
This is the faith of a nomadic people. The Egyptian believed in many gods, just as the Greeks and the Chinese of old. Different schools of Astrotheology is what all they were. I believe the truth is that there is a globalist conspiracy to enslave humankind and it is up to the MAJORITY to WAKE up and fight the ruling minority. It still amazes me how a comparatively handful of English men of pre-nuclear age and ICBM era could have ruled half the world with “stick-and-carrot” propaganda. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

December 28, 2007 @ 8:48 pm | Comment

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm

Washington has adopted a first strike “pre-emptive” nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

December 29, 2007 @ 6:55 am | Comment

First Taiwan, now Israel. You don’t seem to like Kuwait much either. Gee Arty, is there any country that you don’t won’t to kill off the population of?

December 29, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

First Taiwan, now Israel. You don’t seem to like Kuwait much either. Gee Arty, is there any country that you don’t won’t to kill off the population of?

I am simply telling you what happened. I definitely don’t think that I am an emperor while all I can do just teach English oversea or whatever you do :). Btw, time to lose some weight, too. Sorry, I can’t help myself. I live in South Shallowfornia.

December 30, 2007 @ 5:44 am | Comment

A lot of the toxic toys exported to America are actually caused by mainland China Islamic extremists in Xingjian. Those Uyghur Islamic extremists try to create a Taliban state in China. The commie China brutally cracks them down. In retaliation, those Uyghur try to deface Chinese government by sabotaging Chinese export industries. Toxic toy stories are part of them.

For Chinese, the best way to solve these problems is to simply deport all Uyghur or rid of the Islamic extremist.

December 30, 2007 @ 6:41 am | Comment