any military action by the US against China would appear on the face of it to have a decent chance of turning nuclear (which is why it won't happen of course) and should thus be opposed on simple prudential grounds. Those radioactive clouds bloody well travel, as those of us brought up in the Chernobyl contamination zone know.
best, dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Carrol Cox Sent: 09 March 2005 22:35 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Jim Craven on Taiwan "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > All those KMT people are dead. > > What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. > It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but > whatever it is, it isn't pretty. >From everything I know, this is fairly accurate. > In that light, non-support O.K. But what does it mean to either "support" or "not support" A or B in this conflict? Do we want u.s. military interference should China attack Taiwan? Do we want u.s. pressure on Taiwan to give in to China? In regard to the latter, anyone's opinion is of quite irrelevant. In regard to the former, we have to oppose _any_ military action by the u.s. I don't see why anyone needs any opinion whatsoever about Taiwan & China. Carrol > for PRC sabre-rattling in re: > Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems > the right position to me. > > We met with some Taiwan union people a few years > back. They were not looking forward to merging > with the PRC labor market. > > Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction > from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China > goes. > > mbs > > To: [email protected] > Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
