That's not the readout, that's the propaganda spin. Where did you read the actual readout?
where did you?
I'm trying to find it. I have only read excerpts so, of course, I want to read the whole thing. I've heard it's very contentious and that Xi makes it clear that he does not trust Biden to tell the truth.
The neocons view this as a great chance to call China's bluff!!!!! These people are crazy. Stop listening to them and/or the New York Times. We are close to a military clash with China and the US.
Hopefully Pelosi does not go through with this visit.
The Chinese are taking this VERY seriously and don't trust us and consider Pelosi's visit as provocation from the US government. Biden can stop her from going so if she goes it will be viewed that he allowed it. They don't trust us as far as they can throw us.
Here is the Global Times and they sound quite pissed. It's straight forward and we need to pull back and leave China alone.
US' salami-slicing trick won't see China yield on Taiwan question
China is becoming more and more totalitarian and more assertive militarily.
They have conducted an illegal (per Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague findings, nothing to do with the US) grab of the South China Sea.
They are threatening the independence of Taiwan.
How to you propose to finesse this one? Should we just let China have her way with Taiwan? I suppose Taiwan could hope for a result where:
1. Their foreign policy is approved by China.
2. They never criticize China.
3. They don't provide refuge for critics of China.
and in return, China let's them govern themselves.
You are both very quick to criticize everything we do but never engage in speculation as to what might happened if we went into deep isolationist mode.
How Kinmen is not already part of China is a bit of a miracle. Located just 6 miles off of China's shores, China tried to take it in the '50s and the US actually considered using nukes against China and likely a good reason why China doesn't trust diplomatic visits to Taiwan.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to set off soon on a tour of several Asian nations that may include a stop in Taiwan." So, she'll be on a tour of Asia, and the question is whether she should stop in Taiwan. She's not considering a trip to "only Taiwan". So, whether she goes or doesn't go will carry political significance, either way.
It seems to me that any visit by Pelosi would not be inconsistent with (and in fact would simply be an acknowledgment of) the current U.S. position - "In an intentionally ambiguous diplomatic arrangement adopted when Washington recognized Communist ruled China in 1979, the United States maintains a 'one China' policy that acknowledges, but does not endorse, the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China."
I recently finished reading Keven Rudd's book, "The Avoidable War", about the China-U.S. relationship. As part of that, this "ambiguity" about Taiwan is sort of the "best case" scenario for avoiding any sort of military conflict, or a military occupation of Taiwan by forces from the mainland.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to set off soon on a tour of several Asian nations that may include a stop in Taiwan." So, she'll be on a tour of Asia, and the question is whether she should stop in Taiwan. She's not considering a trip to "only Taiwan". So, whether she goes or doesn't go will carry political significance, either way.
It seems to me that any visit by Pelosi would not be inconsistent with (and in fact would simply be an acknowledgment of) the current U.S. position - "In an intentionally ambiguous diplomatic arrangement adopted when Washington recognized Communist ruled China in 1979, the United States maintains a 'one China' policy that acknowledges, but does not endorse, the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China."
I recently finished reading Keven Rudd's book, "The Avoidable War", about the China-U.S. relationship. As part of that, this "ambiguity" about Taiwan is sort of the "best case" scenario for avoiding any sort of military conflict, or a military occupation of Taiwan by forces from the mainland.
They have made it clear that they don't want her to visit so justifying it as "not inconsistent" with the current U.S. policy is not going to stop them from a belligerent response.
The US seems to have difficulty listening to other countries when they repeatedly tell them to back off.
They have made it clear that they don't want her to visit so justifying it as "not inconsistent" with the current U.S. policy is not going to stop them from a belligerent response.
The US seems to have difficulty listening to other countries when they repeatedly tell them to back off.
"China doesn't like U.S. support for Taiwan" is a fact, and what we're talking about are details connected with that support. So just saying "China doesn't like it" isn't a good reason.
I think you should read both NY Times pieces which I linked to in this thread, for a better factual and historical background and current status, than you may have obtained from the Jimmy Dore videos.
This is similar to tjohn's questions around what the role of the US in Europe should have been. It's unclear to me what Nan believes the ideal outcome here is. She thinks the US should not antagonize China, but beyond that, what? Does China have a right to take Taiwan, over the wishes of the Taiwanese, and by force if necessary? If no, what actions can other countries (including the US) take that aren't overly antagonistic but help dissuade China from such a takeover? If yes, what principles can we look to that tell us when it's ok for a country to forcibly take over territory and not? (and, similar to the first question, what can other countries, including the US, do to dissuade or prevent violent occupations and annexations when they are not justified?)
They have made it clear that they don't want her to visit so justifying it as "not inconsistent" with the current U.S. policy is not going to stop them from a belligerent response.
The US seems to have difficulty listening to other countries when they repeatedly tell them to back off.
"China doesn't like U.S. support for Taiwan" is a fact, and what we're talking about are details connected with that support. So just saying "China doesn't like it" isn't a good reason.
I think you should read both NY Times pieces which I linked to in this thread, for a better factual and historical background and current status, than you may have obtained from the Jimmy Dore videos.
while my understanding of this goes way beyond Jimmy Dore, and includes reading your links, I would take Dore's take over the NYTs any day since they have supported every war for as long as I've been around. They should be read with extreme caution, otherwise one might find they have been turned into a neocon. I know you would not want that to happen to you.
When a country that has nukes and the ability to defeat your army tells you not to come, you should listen and oblige. Those who choose to play nuclear chicken should not be in positions of power. This is dangerously nuts.
Ok, for the readout of the call between Biden and Xi - The White House just gave that small paragraph. The Chinese government gave this which is more detailed:
President Xi elaborated on China’s principled position on the Taiwan question. President Xi highlighted that the historical ins and outs of the Taiwan question are crystal clear, and so are the fact and status quo that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China. The three Sino-US joint communiqués embody the political commitments made by the two sides, and the one-China principle is the political foundation for China-US relations. China firmly opposes separatist moves toward “Taiwan independence” and interference by external forces, and never allows any room for “Taiwan independence” forces in whatever form. The position of the Chinese government and people on the Taiwan question is consistent, and resolutely safeguarding China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity is the firm will of the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people. The public opinion cannot be defied. Those who play with fire will perish by it. It is hoped that the US will be clear-eyed about this. The US should honor the one-China principle and implement the three joint communiqués both in word and in deed.
President Biden said that the world is at a critical moment. US-China cooperation benefits not only the two peoples but also people of all countries. The US hopes to keep an open line of communication with China to enhance mutual understanding and avoid misperception and miscalculation, and will work with China where the interests of the two countries align and, at the same time, properly manage differences. He reiterated that the one-China policy of the US has not changed and will not change, and that the US does not support “Taiwan independence”.
I missed the part where Paul or Nan explain what U.S. policy towards Taiwan should be with options ranging from throw Taiwan under the bus to defend Taiwan with all available means.
The only ground rule is to acknowledge that China is not going to allow Taiwan to operate independently forever.
Has anyone figured out what Taiwan wants? How come Americans argue about some far away places, without actually talking about what the native population desires for itself?
I know that Taiwan does NOT want to be governed by a communist totalitarian regime, unlike some Americans who wish they could be governed by said regimes…
We have to start sending clear messages to all these crazies around the world that we will not tolerate their bullying. WW 111 my ****!
They have made it clear that they don't want her to visit so justifying it as "not inconsistent" with the current U.S. policy is not going to stop them from a belligerent response.
The US seems to have difficulty listening to other countries when they repeatedly tell them to back off.
"China doesn't like U.S. support for Taiwan" is a fact, and what we're talking about are details connected with that support. So just saying "China doesn't like it" isn't a good reason.
I think you should read both NY Times pieces which I linked to in this thread, for a better factual and historical background and current status, than you may have obtained from the Jimmy Dore videos.
while my understanding of this goes way beyond Jimmy Dore, and includes reading your links, I would take Dore's take over the NYTs any day since they have supported every war for as long as I've been around. They should be read with extreme caution, otherwise one might find they have been turned into a neocon. I know you would not want that to happen to you.
When a country that has nukes and the ability to defeat your army tells you not to come, you should listen and oblige. Those who choose to play nuclear chicken should not be in positions of power. This is dangerously nuts.
This is not the reason to ignore anything printed in the NY Times: "I would take Dore's take over the NYTs any day since they have supported every war for as long as I've been around."
If you're using it to ignore something on the editorial page, you still have to explain what in the editorial is untrustworthy.
If you're using it to ignore something in the news sections (which have a lot of contributors, and a lot of subjects), you similarly have to explain.
It's like saying, "I don't trust what's in the '1619 Project', because it's in the NY Times." That's MAGA talk.
Also, it sounds like you didn't even bother to read the first NY Times piece I linked - at least look at the title. [Edited to add, see picture below]
And with respect to this: "When a country that has nukes and the ability to defeat your army tells you not to come, you should listen and oblige." That reads as saying that the U.S. should tell Taiwan to just surrender itself to full control by Beiing. If that's not your position, you can correct me on that.
I don't think a Pelosi visit would trigger anything except more of the typical rhetoric. I doubt Xi wants to do anything rash before his October coronation.
I don't think a Pelosi visit would trigger anything except more of the typical rhetoric. I doubt Xi wants to do anything rash before his October coronation.
I missed the part where Paul or Nan explain what U.S. policy towards Taiwan should be with options ranging from throw Taiwan under the bus to defend Taiwan with all available means.
The only ground rule is to acknowledge that China is not going to allow Taiwan to operate independently forever.
I don't speak for Paul but here is what I think: Let's leave them alone and let them figure it out themselves. We should not be involved OR selling arms to Taiwan.
Let's learn from our mistakes for once.
Let's not go to war with China. Let's not spend so much money interfering in other countries while ours is in such dire need of help.
I'm trying to find it. I have only read excerpts so, of course, I want to read the whole thing. I've heard it's very contentious and that Xi makes it clear that he does not trust Biden to tell the truth.
The neocons view this as a great chance to call China's bluff!!!!! These people are crazy. Stop listening to them and/or the New York Times. We are close to a military clash with China and the US.
Hopefully Pelosi does not go through with this visit.
The Chinese are taking this VERY seriously and don't trust us and consider Pelosi's visit as provocation from the US government. Biden can stop her from going so if she goes it will be viewed that he allowed it. They don't trust us as far as they can throw us.
Here is the Global Times and they sound quite pissed. It's straight forward and we need to pull back and leave China alone.
US' salami-slicing trick won't see China yield on Taiwan question
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230934.shtml