What we support and defend

[Dayuhan]

Military action kept South Korea, South Korea.

This is true, and the precedent will be worth considering if any of today's communist states set out to conquer anyone. That remains quite hypothetical at this point.

The Philippines aren't communist. Thailand ain't either

Not through any doing of ours. If we'd kept Marcos in power any longer, the Communists might well have got in... as in some other places, the guy we thought was keeping the commies out was in fact the best thing that ever happened to them.

So I what I see is Commies in=mass murder and suffering. Commies out=a lot less mass murder and suffering. I am not a sophisticated guy but that seems a simple choice.

Like most choice, it's simple when we make it for ourselves. Make the choice for somebody else, and it gets less simple.

I have made it clear in this thread and the other about the South China Sea what I mean when I say not letting them shove allies around. But I will say it again. For starters make it clear that Taiwan stays Taiwan unless there is a free decision by the Taiwanese to subject themselves to Red Chinese authority. Any sort of violence or coercion to effect that outcome is a no go. The South China Sea stays an open sea. Any claim of soveriegnty (sic) by anybody is a no go. How's that?

Sounds like a bunch of blustering words that aren't likely to be backed up by action. What's the "or what" that goes with "no go"? What do we do if the Chinese repond (though they probably wouldn't, they don't show much sense of irony) that US military intervention in the Middle East is a "no go"?

Supposing you do say this, what do you expect to be the result? You know, of course, that they will have to come up with an aggressive, even belligerent response. No choice there, to do anything else would be to look weak in the eyes of their own people and their neighbors. Probably they won't actually attack anyone, since they really don't want to do that... so maybe fire off some missile tests, big naval exercises too close to others, harass a few ships... then we go back to the status quo ante. So what have you achieved, other than to make yourself feel good? You've empowered the most militarist factions on the Chinese side and made it a little easier for them to build some nationalism and a sense of oppression among their own people, which as always will garner support for their government (about the only thing that will get Chinese to support their government is criticism of that government by the US)... so I suppose you could feel good about that, if you really want to.

I realize that you fear and loathe communists in general and Chinese communists in particular. My point, which I may be communicating badly, is that fear and loathing are neither a policy nor a strategy, nor do they get us any closer to a policy or a strategy... like most strong emotions, they make a poor basis for policy and strategy.

The Reds may not be able to fully control that large number of sophisticated people but they have been doing well enough so far. I see no weakening of party control. I see that blind guy was genuinely concerned when word was passed that somebody might beat his wife to death. Seems a pretty strong police state to me.

Have you been paying attention to Chinese internal affairs at all? The signs of stress are easy enough to see. Yes, the crackdowns are still brutal, and getting more frequent. That brutality is not a sign of strength. If a police state is strong, they don't have to crack down, because nobody dares to challenge them.

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.

We want the Chinese people to be mad at their government. Their government wants them to be mad at us. How does it help us to make it easier for the Chinese government to evoke the response they want?

Opposing evil is a good thing. Not opposing it is a bad thing. But first you have to recognize that the evil exists. If you don't see it, you won't do the good thing. That is why it is important to see communism for what it is. Now once you see that, you can oppose it adroitly or maladroitly, but you gotta see it for what it is.

A response based on subjective and emotional conclusions is more likely to be maladroit. You think the Chinese are evil murdering criminals. A lot of people feel the same way about us... after all, we initiated a bloody war on very shaky grounds that many people see as an outright grab for oil resources. Of course in your opinion they are wrong and you are right, we're not really evil murdering criminals and they really are. Others have other opinions. Much of foreign affairs is recognizing and managing perception, and while your perceptions may be shared on the home front, trumpeting them overseas is as likely to harm our cause as to help it.

I know I will never stop you from characterizing concerns that you disagree with as "panic" but at least I can play around with it sometimes.)

You could try a less panicked tone. I disagree with RCJ all the time, can't recall ever suspecting him of panic.

Ultimately political change in Red China will come from within. But our actions can help maintain the status quo so as to give the system time to rot from within

Does chest-thumping bluster help maintain the status quo? Sounds a debatable proposition...