#33: Taiwan > US [Flag over Taiwan?]-China. NYT > Iraq War? KMT Cartoon. 07.7.30=1 8:30pm.

Taiwan > US-China:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG567/
'U.S.-China Relations After Resolution of Taiwan's Status', By Roger Cliff, David A. Shlapak.
============================

KMT Cartoon: http://tinyurl.com/2qkvda
============================
US Flag over Taiwan?
http://www.taiwanadvice.com/flagusa.htm

'Why Isn't the US Flag Flying over Taiwan?', by Richard W. Hartzell & Roger C.S. Lin

"" In a U.S. congressional hearing on May 10, 2006, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick gave a warning against separatist movements in Taiwan, cautioning the leaders of the "Republic of China" not to pursue an independence agenda in connection with their announced plans to revise the ROC Constitution.

Zoellick said that the US administration wanted to be "supportive of Taiwan while not encouraging those that try to move toward independence." He stressed that Taiwan will "keep hitting into a wall" if it continues to dispute the "One China Policy" under which Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

Increasingly, current US policy ignores the existence of the "Republic of China on Taiwan" and its democratically elected leaders. Many members of Congress criticize this policy as inappropriate and illogical, viewing it as primarily based on misguided attempts to appease the communist dictators in Beijing.

However, the logic of the Executive Branch's stance on the Taiwan issue can be found in an area of legal studies called the "customary laws of warfare," wherein there is a subset of norms called the "customary laws of flag raising." ""
... ...
=============================

New York Times for Iraq War?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07282007.html

'Now the New York Times Sells "Bloodbath" as a Rationale for Staying in Iraq', By ALEXANDER COCKBURN; CounterPunch: Weekend Edition: July 28 / 29, 2007: CounterPunch Diary:

"" There’s been no stage in the grim progress of the US onslaught on Iraq at which the New York Times hasn’t been shoving the whole ghastly enterprise along. First there were Judy Miller and Michael Gordon promoting the WMD rationale for attack. More recently there was Michael Gordon selling the surge.

Now it’s John Burns, pushing the notion that if the US withdraws there’ll a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions as the Iraqis slaughter each other. The administration is seizing eagerly on this, which is a bit like Dracula saying his castle is the best security guarantee against local peasant girls being attacked by vampires. ""
... ...