For sure they may put up a token resistance. But I don't know about a full-on engagement.Do you personally still see the US defending Taiwan with direct force as unlikely?
For sure they may put up a token resistance. But I don't know about a full-on engagement.Do you personally still see the US defending Taiwan with direct force as unlikely?
He might actually mean “defend” when he says defend Taiwan. but what he wants and what will be allowed are two different things.After some thought, I don't think Biden was being "political" when he said the US would come to Taiwan's defense. The answer was off-the-cuff and Biden is old school enough to mean "defend" when he says "defend" in this context.
Still the president has absolute authority to defend militarily or engage with CCP forces without Congress for minimal of 3 months. After 3 months of war with CCP will than Congress be able to say Ya or Nay on it. That's why people where worried with Trump & China cause as president gives him every authority to do so within a 3 month window before Congress can legally vote on it.He might actually mean “defend” when he says defend Taiwan. but what he wants and what will be allowed are two different things.
Show that in law not just opinionStill the president has absolute authority to defend militarily or engage with CCP forces without Congress for minimal of 3 months. After 3 months of war with CCP will than Congress be able to say Ya or Nay on it. That's why people where worried with Trump & China cause as president gives him every authority to do so within a 3 month window before Congress can legally vote on it.
People often forget how much power a US president has over foreign policy or war. Bush did it with Iraq. Went in without permission which is his right, than three months later Congress gets to vote weather to continue the war or stop it.
Will he do it is another question I can't answer... My guess its 50/50 coin toss realistically with Biden.Any president can declare war without permission from Congress. Since there already is a treaty makes it all the more easy for biden to do it.
And here we go with the constitutional arguments. We have both made it clear where we stand. I am for what has been set by precedent as dous the rest of the state and federal goverment.Show that in law not just opinion
What does that mean though.Well its certainly trending fast:
“The U.S. defence relationship with Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act. We will uphold our commitment under the act, we will continue to support Taiwan’s self-defence, and we will continue to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo,” the spokesperson said.What does that mean though.
Well lend them money to fight the good fight.
Well send them military supplies.
Well sail though chines submarine “Wolfpack” to deliver food fuel and bombs.
Well shoot down PLA planes flying to close to Taiwan.
It’s vague and about as threatening as smacking fist to palm.
My point is we need to be specific and clear and Congress MUST be involved.
Because after Afghanistan we cannot afford anymore failed defense policies.
Standing up and puffing out chest out and saying yeah boy won’t cut it anymore.
But that won’t happen will it. Congress actually work? whatever. congress is like joining a college fraternity retirement home.
60 days, according to the War Powers Act of 1973.Show that in law not just opinion
But doesn’t the case have to be made an imminent threat to the US.60 days, according to the War Powers Act of 1973.
That has happened before. Presidents send in the military and Congress then has to cut the funding in order to get them out.Show that in law not just opinion
That is very vague. Even when Bush did it was very vague. We went into Iraq for "suspicion" of WMD's. There was no immediate threat to the US when they planned it even if there where really WMDs. Threats to "national defense" are often if not always vague.the exercise of the national defense and security the president can act for three months.
in October 2002, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 107-243, titled “Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Resolution of 2002.That is very vague. Even when Bush did it was very vague. We went into Iraq for "suspicion" of WMD's. There was no immediate threat to the US when they planned it even if there where really WMDs. Threats to "national defense" are often if not always vague.
I could come up with 10 reasons why CCP attack or takeover of Taiwan is a national defense threat. Or at least vague threats like Bush used in Iraq.
Any of these vague reasons are fine enough to militarily physically defend Taiwan by any President not just Biden.
- Military bases in Japan more vulnerable.
- Military bases in Korea vulnerable.
- Military bases in rest of Asia vulnerable.
- Maritime Safty.
- Tech Chip Production Security.
- We could have citizens there at the time.
- Protect other allies in the region.
- Lose control of the SCS & China being able to assert its 9dash line.
- Lose the rest of what little left in credibility the US has which has defense complications.
- Possibly is a secret backdoor treaty already in place that ties our hands into coming to Taiwans defense.