Incompetent argument based on hope. PRC bandit actions are what I see, not your assertionns





The reaties are there being violated. I have supplied the data to show this. You';ve supplued nothing except an assertion whuch is of cou8rse a lie.


BECAUSE I'VE FOUGHT WARS MORON AND YOU HAVEN'T. I know how CURRENT DoD and Allied militaries view collateral damage because I've been trained over and over on the matter. YOU HAVEN'T. WE NEED ACCESS TO FOREIGN BASES AND OVERFLIGHT if we intend to get the USAF into the fight. We aren't going to do things that would COMPEL Allied politicians to deny us access for fear of PRC retaliation.

 SEE WHAT? A GLCM that cant reach the target and has an inappropriate payload to destroy it?

 

Take your own advice and stick to driving. Leave physics and MISSILES alone too, LIAR.

By the rules I can't tell you what you are, but your lies and incompertence as cited above; reveal you exactly. That (the mathermatics espcially; that called you a liar) is sufficient.

 

Interesting thread but for the rude herald rants. Would that herald could learn to express himself in an adult manner. There would likely be larger participation and more genuine information traded in a spirit of polite disagreement. herald has good ideas but does not know how to face factual rebuttal. Perhaps he should spend a year in kindergarten to develop those skills before returning here and renewing his relationship with US.

 

As to the topic as it has evolved: We won't bomb dams. Period, full stop. Although it might be considered a legitimate target within the structure of a all out conflict with China like WWII was, it is problematic since should we prevail in the war we will have to pay for the rehabilitation as part of our "Marshall plan" to rebuild our enemy (we rebuild every enemy we defeat. Vietnam should have surrendered to US then we would have turned them into a modern Japan by the mid 80's). That repair work would just cost too damn much. Second, killing civilians wholesale was proved to be a stupid tactic in WWII since it makes the enemy's civilian population become more aligned with their despotic rulers and fight harder against US. Bombing the dam isn't a logical choice in this conflict in particular since we would be attempting to support Taiwan and we can effectively neuter the dam by cutting it's power stations without busting the dam itself. The job of busting the power grid is a whole lot easier than dealing with the effects of a shattered dam deluging thousands of square miles of farmland and villages. Case closed on that silliness.

 

A Question to carry the debate into current US foreign policy: We agree here that the US must act quickly in the event of all out war between Taiwan and PRC. We would have about a week or so to provide meaningful support before Taiwanese leaders might begin to bend under the stress of continuous missile bombardment and a naval blockade, perhaps an outright invasion.

 

Would we intervene militarily in Taiwan? or would our current political leadership attempt to negotiate a settlement? We have not intervened in Central America where Venezuela has moved upon Honduras, Niciragua, and other formerly friendly nations. Chavez is acting overtly in support of very bad people and against our former allies in the area. This constitutes a rollback of the Monroe Doctrine. We have sided with the Iranian backed Hamas/Hezzbollah in The Palestinian Territories. We have given $900 million to them in spite of their acts of direct aggression against our former ally Israel. That money is in direct support of those that have been our enemies. No debate there is there? We are not going to stop North Korea from shooting missiles at Hawaii but instead stand ready to use our interceptors. Wouldn't it be better to stop the missile on the pad if it appears it will be shot over Japan at US? Simply put, we aren't going to stop anybody militarily from doing anything are we?

 

Given our demonstrated shift away from confrontation, why would China expect US to intervene? IF they attack our bases then yes we would probably have to respond, but if they simply gin up a reason to invade Taiwan and leave US alone, might they expect to face our diplomatic prowess and nothing else? Hillary Clinton is the very essence of a China friendly US agent. Why would she be expected to stand up to China when her husband gave China the ability to target US with modern ballistic missiles? Obama can't find enough offense to even speak out on behalf of Iranian dissidents let alone Chinese dissidents. Given the current US position wouldn't it be up to other interested parties in the region to interevene if any military intervention was expected at all? That wouldn't be likely either because any parties who might defend Taiwan would do so against the threat of US sanctions.

 

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

Seriously, when are you  guys going to catch on as to what a prevaricator he's turning into?

 

 

Takes time, I know but its as plain as Jane's to me.

Sort of like Blue Wings and his new "friend", that he brought on-board to try to buttress his lying carcass in that other thread..

Herald .  

Herald, DA, providing that you both don't actually say the things you do with the genuine malice that might be assumed, I think you're both able to give as good as you get, I'd put money on the fact that you'd get on over a beer.

 

I don't want to interject into this war, but I think this might be a timely reminder that we will very soon see what BO is made of (as well as european politicians) regarding the situation in Xinjiang, It could well (not enough information available at present time) be a massacre of similar proportions to that of Tianenmman square, it will be interesting to see if we can summon the balls to make any statement other than "appealing for calm", if that is the extent of criticism from the West then I, for one, will be utterly ashamed.

Herald, DA, providing that you both don't actually say the things you do with the genuine malice that might be assumed, I think you're both able to give as good as you get, I'd put money on the fact that you'd get on over a beer.

I don't want to interject into this war, but I think this might be a timely reminder that we will very soon see what BO is made of (as well as European politicians) regarding the situation in Xinjiang, It could well (not enough information available at present time) be a massacre of similar proportions to that of Tianenmman square, it will be interesting to see if we can summon the balls to make any statement other than "appealing for calm", if that is the extent of criticism from the West then I, for one, will be utterly ashamed.

I think political dialogue regarding "chinese human rights" has become the inconvenient awkward footnote in diplomacy rather than something that was expected to improve in return for increased trade and access for and with China.

 

The ruling party will scarcely be able to contain their joy that, a riot just as significant as those in tibet before the olympics, has gone completely unquestioned. I don't like what that signifies, obviously I understand about political necessity, and the unfortunate reality for "principles" in those instances, what I don't like is the fact that we have allowed ourselves to become so reliant on China that we can't afford to maintain ours (principles) when we really should.

 

For a comparable (or hey, even if it was fractional) scale unrest to tiananmen, it seems that we're far less concerned. For a death toll 10x higher than that in Iran, it worries me that it is being wilfully swept under the carpet.

 

And that surely has future implications for Taiwan.