Will Joe Biden lead America into war with China?

Question

Joe the war monger has often said the USA should attack Sudan due to the problems in Darfur. Sudan is a key ally of China.

Answer 1

Well, thanks for the slanted, over simplified, patronizingly given history lesson as subtext for a leading question. My answer is No but if the US tries to sponsor Taiwan as a NATO member, there will be h-ll to pay.

Answer 2

Sudan is not a key ally of China, its a trading partner.

Give China what they need and its fixed in Sudan.

China doesn't want a war, it wants stability and peace.

Every time the U.S. is at war it only cost China a lot of money.

Answer 3

well i'm pretty sure your McCain will, and i quote "Go To The Gates Of h**l"

i am so tired of rightist.  

Answer 4

No!

Answer 5

You should be old enough to know that the vice president doesn't do anything.  That is except for Cheney who did lead us into war with Iraq hoping to get all the rebuilding contracts.  Why weren't you afraid of all that el toro poo poo?

Answer 6

I doubt China would risk open war with the US over a patch of sand like the Sudan.  China will provoke us into war when it suits their interests, no matter who the President is.

Answer 7

Biden has not "often said the USA should attack Sudan."  During the presidential debates, Biden was asked about the use of military force in the Sudan, due to the Darfur crisis.  His response was "Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can. We should now. Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over."  What he was suggesting was no different than what was done in Kosovo, for instance, i.e., the insertion of troops to keep people from killing each other.  I'm not saying that I think even that would necessarily be a good idea, just that Biden is not advocating "attacking" Sudan.

Further, as someone else already pointed out, Sudan is not a "key ally" of China.  China is not going to go to war with the US over the insertion of troops to keep one group of Sudanese from massacring another group.  Is is possible?  Sure, but the real question is, is it likely?  The answer to that question is certainly no.

Finally, the US did not "surrender" in Vietnam.  Based on the peace accord that was signed with North Vietnam, there was just a cessation of hostilities.  Certainly the US had no illusions about the fact that the North Vietnamese were not going to refrain from resuming their attempts to conquer the South.  But it was Nixon, not "the Democrats," who sent Kissinger to talk to both the Soviets and the Chinese about agreeing to the US withdrawal in exchange for restraining their North Vietnamese client until a "decent interval" had passed to allow the US to claim "peace with honor."  It certainly wasn't a victory, which was impossible anyway, but neither was it a surrender.

It was the American people turning against the Vietnam war that forced Nixon's hand, just as it is the American people turning against the Iraq war that is forcing Bush's hand in agreeing to a "timetable" for withdrawal, an idea he had scorned as late as a few months ago.

Moreover, it wasn't just the Left that supported the war; the Right supported it, too.  Many people saw as good thing what the US was supposedly trying to do in Vietnam, i.e., prevent an emerging democracy from being overrun by the forces of totalitarianism.  Many of the same people who initially supported the war eventually (not "suddenly") became convinced that it was unwinable, since the only way the US could "win" would be to stay there forever, or somehow convince the North to forever give up its ambitions towards the South.  In the meantime, Americans were dying by the hundreds every month, and Vietnamese by the thousands.  It may not have been the Left only that supported the war in the beginning, but it was certainly almost exclusively the Right that continued to support it after most of the rest of the country, including some of the Right, had turned against it.

    

I am not merely trying to put a good face on this.  I think the US involvement in Vietnam was a mistake from the start, and certainly the escalation was.  I also have no problem with calling the US failure in Vietnam a defeat, since they did not achieve their objective of preventing the North from overrunning the South.  But there was certainly no "surrender," at least not in the sense that you seem to be implying, i.e., some formal process like the one that ended World War II.

You and I have butted heads before on this forum.  I am a long-time student of history (more than forty years), and particularly military history.  You clearly have some knowledge of the subject, as well.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.  But we seem to often disagree not just on the interpretation of the facts, but on what the facts are themselves.  

Answer 8

Short answer , no.

China will not care as long as the new governing body is allowed to trade with China.Heck they may allie with the U.S.

If the U.S. or U.N. is somehow responsible for stopping atrocities , then this is a prime cause .

Answer 9

no, but mc cain might.

Answer 10

No. Joe Biden is running as VICE-President, not President. He will attend funerals of State leaders, attack Republicans who disagree with Obama and have tea with the Daughters of the Revolution. That's what Vice Presidents do in America.

Answer 11

Will That old white guy drop his bundle and Nuk Russia ??

War mongers like Mccain just might..

I'd rather have Obama's finger on the button as opposed to an old forgetful septugenarian

Answer 12

When you make up your "history" to fit your theory, you can make any theory sound good. The sixties are long over, and so much has changed in the power structure of the USA, not to mention the world, that your analogy is so tortured as to be meaningless. And the Chinese are unlikely to loan us the money to fund a war against them, so I wouldn't worry too much about the possibility.