Pay no attention to the fact Joe Biden just threatened to go to war with Red China over Taiwan. Really, no big deal. Now, getting back to our COVID vaccine scam . . .

Just how dangerous is it to have the senile petty grifter Joe Biden – installed by our corrupt neo-Bolshevik “Democrat Party” by means of the most enormous and blatant election fraud in American history – sitting in the White House, pretending to be “President of the United States”?

For anyone who’s been paying attention in recent days, the most relevant answer to this rhetorical question must be another question: “Would that include Bumbling Joe’s threat, last Thursday, to launch a nuclear war with China if they ‘move against’ Taiwan?”

“In an interview aired by ABC News on Thursday,” Britain’s newspaper The Guardian reported on Aug. 20, four days ago, “Biden was asked about the effects of the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan and responses in Chinese media telling Taiwan this showed Washington could not be relied on to come to its defence.

“Biden replied that Taiwan, South Korea and Nato were fundamentally different situations to Afghanistan and appeared to lump Taiwan together with countries to which Washington has explicit defence commitments.

“They are . . . entities we’ve made agreements with based on not a civil war they’re having on that island or in South Korea, but on an agreement where they have a unity government that, in fact, is trying to keep bad guys from doing bad things to them,” the president said.

“We have made, kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to article 5 that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our Nato allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that.”

Now, as The Guardian reminds us, “Washington is required by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, but it has long followed a policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ on whether it would intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.”

While, on the other hand, “Article 5 is a Nato agreement that states an attack on one member of the alliance is viewed as an attack on all.”

So, how huge a shift Joe Biden made in our commitment to defend Taiwan against a Red Chinese attack depends on what he meant when he said that “If anyone were to invade or take action” against Taiwan, “we would respond.” Clearly, he was saying the United States “would respond” in the same way that we “would respond” if Russia were to invade Poland or Hungary, or drop a nuclear bomb on Denmark or England.

Would this waffling, clueless, out-of-his-depth stumblebum respond to such an all-out military attack by simply sending a strongly worded letter? Would he, like the guy who is obviously still running the White House, Barack Hussein Obammy, “draw a red line in the sand” – and then do nothing if the Chinese Communists crossed his comical “red line”, hitting the beaches of Taiwan with 20,000 assault troops in the first wave?

Possibly. If so, it’s no wonder our “NATO allies” are scrambling to develop closer ties with Vlad Putin’s Russia as Biden continues to act nonchalant about abandoning 10,000 Americans in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where they’ll either become hostages or get their heads cut off if they refuse to immediately convert to Islam and start walking around wrapped up in bedspreads.

But probably not. Probably, after the debacle of Afghanistan, the Pentagon would take a brief time out from their current regime of indoctrinating the troops that “all whites must feel guilty because they’re all racists” and “How to make sensitive accommodations for the drag queens and ‘post-op transgenders’ now cohabiting with your unit” to pressure the prez to do SOMETHING — to at least send two or three aircraft carriers to patrol within attack range of Taiwan, steaming back and forth and whining “You’d better watch out! You don’t want to make us mad! ‘Cause we might DO SOMETHING!”

What then? Red Chinese aircraft would overfly those carriers. Buzz them. Red Chinese submarines would track them with active sonar. Presumably, our subs would then light up the commie subs, in turn. What happened to the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano – the old U.S. cruiser “Phoenix,” handed over to the goose-stepping Argentine dictators and renamed – when it executed a turn which technically took it IN THE DIRECTION OF THE FALKLANDS when the Brits were in the process of liberating the scattered sheep-farmers on those islands after a thoroughly half-assed Argentine invasion back in 1982?

On 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo had ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a “massive attack.” The following day the General Belgrano, which remained outside and to the south-west of the British 200-mile exclusion zone, was ordered south-east.

Lombardo’s signal was intercepted by British Intelligence. As a result, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her war cabinet instructed the British submarine Conqueror to intervene.

The Conqueror fired three conventional, non-guided torpedoes, assuming they would inflict sufficient damage to convince the Argentines to change their plans. But the Argentines had neglected to close the watertight doors between compartments. (During time of war. While advancing to attack. You could not make this stuff up.) Two torpedoes struck the cruiser. The first blew off the ships’ bow (see photo.) The second struck nearer the stern, and caused the real problem. Belgrano’s electrical system failed, making it impossible for her to pump out the inflowing sea water or even radio for help. At 16:24, Captain Bonzo (I’m sorry, but really) ordered the crew to abandon ship. 323 lives were lost.

What if the Red Chinese sank one of our carriers? Yes, I’m sure our missile and torpedo defenses are SUPERIOR to theirs, but our forces “out at the end of the string” would be vastly outnumbered, and the genocidal dictators in Beijing have shown they don’t mind throwing away the odd ten thousand cannon-fodder peasants to make a point. Besides which, the greedy Clintons sold every classified American military technology they could lay their hands on to the ChiComs 25 years ago. Who knows what their busy hackers have pilfered, since?

I do not work at the Pentagon – I have no ability to click a couple of keys on my computer and call up our/their actual contingency plans.

I should also note, here, that the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t need to ACTUALLY conquer Taiwan militarily. If they can convince Taipei that they COULD do so — that the U.S. is a paper tiger which would do nothing EFFECTIVE in response, Beijing can then offer a seemingly more pleasant, less dramatic and confrontational alternative — a gradual “re-integration” of Taiwan with the mainland over the next 30 years, including lots of “sober and binding guarantees of human rights and political pluralism” (insert noises of teen-agers making farting noises by squeezing their hands in their armpits) . . . while also including the placement of helpful ChiCom “ceremonial basketweaving and peacekeeping” forces on the island. . . . See how that works?

But as we’re working out these “logic chains,” it’s simply common sense to ask “How would the United States defend – or re-take – Taiwan?” The Philippines evicted U.S. forces from our massive bases at Clark Field and Subic Bay in the 1990s, so any attempt to defend Taiwan against an active attack would likely stage through Okinawa.

But America no longer has dozens of active, combat-ready infantry and Marine divisions, as we did in 1944 or even 1964. (And even then, DEPLOYING those divisions took months of planning. And the kind of fuel supplies we would have had available until Bumbling Joe shut down our pipelines and refineries, because “Carbon Footrpint.”)

Sen. John Cronyn recently tweeted that the U.S. has 30,000 troops in Taiwan, But that hasn’t been true since 1979. Our current troop strength there, according to Newsweek, is 30. No, not 30 divisions. Not 30 brigades. Not even 30 platoons. Thirty uniformed persons. Possibly enough to defend the ping-pong table in the recreation hall.

Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of China’s “Global Times,” tweeted on Aug. 17: “Someone said that @JohnCornyn mistook that number by using the number of previous US troops stationed on Taiwan island before China and the US set up diplomatic relations. I think the senator is not confused, and he wants to test our response. My answer to him is war.”

The Greater China Journal took a slightly more aggressive stance, threatening to ‘Wipe Out’ US Troops and ‘Liberate’ Taiwan Over “False Tweet by Senator John Cornyn.”

Sounds akniost like they don’t get the joke.

It would take us two years or more to draft and train an army big enough to take Taiwan away from the Red Chinese. Some stupid island half a world away? Really?

Taiwan’s people deserve to remain free. Taiwan is also a major source of our computer chips, among other things. But I’m sorry, the Democrats are already triggering massive inflation here as they come close to spending us into bankruptcy. Whether or not we COULD do it, once Joebama and Co. had finished callously throwing away the lives of our two remaining airborne divisions, would today’s American taxpayers knuckle down and prepare for years of hardship and sacrifice in a major war against China IN THEIR OWN THEATER OF OPERATIONS to liberate one lousy island? I don’t think so.

No, if Joe Biden is promising to “respond” to any Red Chinese step to “take action” against Taiwan, our very WEAKNESS in conventional forces in the area means there’d be a strong temptation to “teach the Chinese a lesson” by using the only quickly available hammer we have – by whacking the Chinese coastal air bases and troop embarkation areas first with kinetic strikes from space and – if that doesn’t work – with nuclear weapons.

And you think such an exchange would remain “limited”?

Which may be why the Pentagon and State Department have raced in recent days to say, in effect, “Pay no attention to the demented codger in the Oval Office – he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

“A senior Biden administration official said US policy on Taiwan had not changed after President Joe Biden appeared to suggest the US would defend the island if it were attacked, a deviation from a long-held US position of ‘strategic ambiguity.’” the Guardian reports. . . . “A senior Biden administration official said later on Thursday that US ‘policy with regard to Taiwan has not changed” and analysts said it appeared that Biden had misspoken.’”

But note that statement came from an UNNAMED SOURCE, probably in the State Department, where the “woke” soy boys already dance around in ruffled bloomers and frilly frocks like Little Bo Peep, while Biden himself offered no “correction.”

So everything is OK now, because we can safely dismiss anything said by the occupant of the Oval Office as the non-binding blitherings of a senile idiot?

And we’re supposed to fel confident that ruthless dictators and terrorists half a world away know exactly which “unnamed D.C. source” to trust as to when Sleepy Joe speaks for our government, and when he thinks he’s still a lifeguard by the pool, listening to “Duke of Earl” and “Big Girls Don’t Cry” on his transistior radio?

Thanks, I feel so much safer.

Right now, today, people with lots of stars on their collars and shoulderboards are carefully parsing the 25th Amendment, while colonels in plainclothes are asking their agents in her entourage “So, Is the Ho as big an imbecile as she seems? Can she even UNDERSTAND this stuff? Can she be trusted to at least keep her mouth shut? What are our other options? The Chief of staff? If Joe Mumbles were to fall into a medically induced coma, would this Ron Klain guy be of any use? Just another soy boy who’s busy re-tweeting Joy Reid over at MSNBC? Oh, Jesus. Pelosi’s third in line, and SHE’s an 81-year-old drunk. Somehow I don’t think anyone’s going to buy HER as the ‘senior statesman’ stepping in to restore calm and order.”

No no. No no. When the President speaks “on the record” (not joking around with his pals over a hand of poker), that’s OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY. That’s why the real president, Donald Trump, so frequently frustrates questioners with “We’ll see what happens.” He’s keeping his adversaries guessing, while he holds the big stick behind his back.

America’s adversaries are now going to start testing Joe Biden and the Paper Tiger Pentagon of Thoroughly Modern Milley. On multiple fronts. The choice will be to react strongly – possibly even to OVERRACT, in three, four, six places at once, sending the Children of the Deplorables to die in places their parents can’t even find on the map as we race to restore our drawn-down, wimped-out military strength . . . or, more likely (since they COULD have sent in a massive hammer to Kabul, “rescuing” any hostages who survived, but evidently won’t), to send strongly worded letters to the world’s barbarian, throat-slashing hordes – while trying to bribe them into short-term restraint with pallets of cash (though they’ll soon get smart enough to start demanding gold) — as they laugh at us, the way the Taliban did when they had a gaggle of their troops dressed in captured American uniforms and body armor raise their Taliban flag in Kabul, in a photo op designed to parody and ridicule the famous photo of Ira Hayes and other American troops raising Old Glory on the summit of Mount Suribachi 76 years ago.

In response, our troops COULD make us proud. But with the “be careful not to injure them” Rules of Engagement likely to be imposed by today’s mincing, limp-wristed Pentagon and state Department – where I understand a large bronze statue of Neville Chamberlain waving his Sudetenland agreement with Hitler over his head has recently been installed?

Don’t bet on it.

Fight fiercely, Harvard
fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless we have the will

How we shall celebrate our victory
We shall invite the whole team up for tea
(How jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field, and
Fight, fight, fight!

Fight fiercely, Harvard
fight, fight, fight!
Impress them with our prowess, do!
Oh, fellows, do not let the crimson down
Be of stout heart and true
Come on, chaps, fight for Harvard’s glorious name
Won’t it be peachy if we win the game?

(Oh, goody!)
Let’s try not to injure them, but
Fight, fight, fight!
(Let’s not be rough though)
And do fight fiercely!
Fight, fight, fight!

– Tom Lehrer

4 Comments to “Pay no attention to the fact Joe Biden just threatened to go to war with Red China over Taiwan. Really, no big deal. Now, getting back to our COVID vaccine scam . . .”

  1. Technomad Says:

    What makes you think that the ChiComs could invade Taiwan so easily? I’ve been there, and that island is fortified to a fare-thee-well. There’s also ninety miles of open sea between PRC territory and Taiwan, and the Taiwanese know where the threat will come from.

    The PLA hasn’t fought a victorious war since 1953, IIRC, and a lot of its commanders are more interested in their side business ventures than in fighting wars. They’re great at kicking unarmed students, helpless Hong Kongers, or Uighurs around, but when they went into Vietnam in 1979 they got a very bloody nose, and their skirmishes with the Indians haven’t gone well.

    I also wouldn’t be one bit surprised to find that the Taiwanese have the makings of nukes, and can finish putting them together real fast. No sane ChiCom leader wants to trade Shanghai, Guangzhou, Fuzhou, and a bunch of other southeastern cities for a blasted, ruined island that’d be no use to them at all.

  2. Mark Miskell Says:

    Good to see you on line again. we need your voice of reason. you are a stand for liberty.

  3. Kingsnake Says:

    Fwiw, the U.S. only has one airborne division, the 82nd, and one brigade, the 173rd. The 101st Airborne Division is, in fact, no longer airborne (it is air assault, i.e., helicopters). Though your point stands …

  4. Vin Says:

    Hi, Technomad — I believe I did note: “The Chinese Communist Party doesn’t need to ACTUALLY conquer Taiwan militarily. If they can convince Taipei that they COULD do so — that the U.S. is a paper tiger which would do nothing EFFECTIVE in response, Beijing can then offer a seemingly more pleasant, less dramatic and confrontational alternative — a gradual “re-integration” of Taiwan with the mainland over the next 30 years, . . .”

    Which “peaceful reunification dialogue” may already have been initiated, even if in a somewhat informal, and desultory manner.

    See (citing a recent Forbes article which may or may not be paywalled), as well as . . . .

    While it’s fairly common to credit the Chinese with infinite patience, I believe that Forbes piece goes so far as to speculate that President Xi may actually face an effective six-year deadline for remaining in power if he FAILS to somehow absorb Taiwan.

    Not that I’m wishing any harm on the Taiwanese, you understand. But I don’t believe we’ve ever actually SEEN an invasion prefaced with a combined germ warfare/EM pulse attack by a really big nation that’s been busily stealing/buying U.S. military tech for the past 30 years.

    Rommel’s Atlantic Wall was impressively fortified, with Panzer divisions in reserve. I believe it held for 12 hours.

    But as the behavior of the (theoretically) massivly funded and supplied Afghan Army demonatrates (as opposed to, say, the conduct of Washington’s ill-equipped ragamuffins at Trenton and Princeton) the WILL is crucial. Chiang Kai-Shek’s well-equipped (by us, at enormous expense) forces rarely showed it, while Mao’s did. The current Red Chinese Army? Unknown — Communist bureaucracies suck, and they haven’t looked real great in Vietnam or along the Indian border, as you point out.

    The Taiwanese? Maybe. Though when have they ever fought a real action — even a raid? And as for the Pentagon of Bought-off Biden, Thoroughly Modern Milley, and their surrendergenerals: They’d likely be asking the Chicoms if they’d be nice to us in exchange for a few dozen Blackhawks and a bunch of howitzers as a down payment on our Christmas tribute. “Oh, and would you like some pallets of cash?”

    — V.S.