Eat that China

[Monroe]

"We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements," said Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "It seriously violates the norm of international relations and seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_ ... dalai_lama


What do you guys think about Tibet and for that matter Tiawan? I for one am all for supporting them openly just to piss the reds off.
And yes, any nation with the sickle and hammer in their paralment I think deserves to be called the reds

[Azrael]

In both cases, i think the chinese should back off. and that such.

In the case of Taiwan, china has threatened war with the united states if we interfere

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. War with CHINA. We definately have the industrial capacity for that.

[Captain Seafort]

It's pretty much inevitable sooner or later. The PLAN has been developing its expeditionary warfare capability since the '96 Taiwan Straights crisis. The don't have the capacity to challenge a USN CVBG (yet), but it won't be long before the have some decent power-projection capabilities. Eventually they will have the capability to make an expedition in support of Taiwan very difficult. After that, who knows? What's certain is that the Taiwan Straight is currently the most likely flashpoint for WW3. And I'm sure people know what Einstein said about WW4.

[Sionnach Glic]

Okay, I think the Dali Llama is a good guy, and firmly believe that China should just back off.

What do you guys think about Tibet and for that matter Tiawan? I for one am all for supporting them openly just to **** the reds off.

Look at Iraq. Do you seriously think the US is able of beating a country many times its size, and holding it, without it ending in a Phyric victory or in a nuclear war? Becuase that's what it'll come to if relations get any worse.
Go for it, just don't drag Europe into it with you.

[Jim]

Okay, I think the Dali Llama is a good guy, and firmly believe that China should just back off.

What do you guys think about Tibet and for that matter Tiawan? I for one am all for supporting them openly just to **** the reds off.

Look at Iraq. Do you seriously think the US is able of beating a country many times its size, and holding it, without it ending in a Phyric victory or in a nuclear war? Becuase that's what it'll come to if relations get any worse.
Go for it, just don't drag Europe into it with you.

Sometimes I wish we would just do what China did... slam the borders shut, say "Screw You leave us alone too" to the rest of the world and clean up our own massive problems.

[Monroe]

Okay, I think the Dali Llama is a good guy, and firmly believe that China should just back off.

What do you guys think about Tibet and for that matter Tiawan? I for one am all for supporting them openly just to **** the reds off.

Look at Iraq. Do you seriously think the US is able of beating a country many times its size, and holding it, without it ending in a Phyric victory or in a nuclear war? Becuase that's what it'll come to if relations get any worse.
Go for it, just don't drag Europe into it with you.

I didn't say I wanted war Just I wanted to piss off China a little bit. I really don't trust them, and unlike Russia we can't beat them by outspending them

And Einstein's quote is silly. If the world fought that devestating of a war transportation would shut down as well leaving out the possibility of a world war until mankind becomes modern again.

[Mikey]

Sometimes I wish we would just do what China did... slam the borders shut, say "Screw You leave us alone too" to the rest of the world and clean up our own massive problems.

Yeah, it was a good thing we kept that policy while WWII was starting, right? It's not always a bad idea, but it's a pipe dream. And if we are going to act like the moral compass for the parts of the world where we have financial interests (oops! was that out loud?) then how could we possibly keep our noses out of the Tibetan situation?

As far as Taiwan... Chiang Kai-Shek was an idiot back in the day, and I don't really feel the need to go towar to support as porous a rampart agains the "Red Menace" as Taiwan is. I say write 'em off.

[Sionnach Glic]

I didn't say I wanted war Just I wanted to **** off China a little bit.

Except you can't afford to annoy them. Not much, at least.

And I'm sure people know what Einstein said about WW4.

For those who don't know it:
"I know not which what weapons world war three will be fought, but world war four shall be fought with sticks and stones."

[Granitehewer]

Tapei is softening its stance to the Politburo of the PRC and rather than exercise littoral or aerial, deterrents to counter amphibious landings, is in the process like Malaysia and Singapore of subsuming to the middle kingdom hegemony via economics and a reassertation of common racial values, in these three chinas, what is worrying is not the thought of chinese ballistic missiles hitting Aegis cruisers moored in Tapei, or Jians screeching over the Danshi and xindian rivers but the fact that, despite the 1979 debacle, even staunch hardline enemies of the PRC like Vietnam and Indonesia, are being less antagonist, potentially creating a sinophilic sphere of uncontested influence, even the national Kokkai of Japan, have threatened to quarantine american naval and other military bases in the advent of a conflict........

[Aaron]

Look at Iraq. Do you seriously think the US is able of beating a country many times its size, and holding it, without it ending in a Phyric victory or in a nuclear war? Becuase that's what it'll come to if relations get any worse.
Go for it, just don't drag Europe into it with you.

The US and Taiwan don't have to outright beat China, they just ave to defeat any cross-channel invasion force. And given China's naval and force projection capabilitis, that won't be difficult what so ever. China currently isn't even building up it's amphibious capabilities. As for the nuclear option: China only has twenty ICBM's capable of reaching the US mainland, each with a single warhead. The US missile shield will be able to deal with those shortly.

[Azrael]

Nuclear war is a lose lose situation. Despite what einstein said, i'm not sure it will come to that.

Iraq is a bad example. we're not fighting an army, we're fighting insurgants who refuse to follow the geneva convention; and the rest of the world expects us to against them. We have to follow a fucked up politically correct RoE, and we get our hands tied in certain situations, if the insurgants are launching rockets ect ect from Mosques, we can't fight back, because they're "holy sites"

we're also fighting in a huge metropolis, TRYING not to kill every civilian in there, that also binds our hands quite a bit, it that wasn't an issue, we would of just pounded the insurgants in to the ground without the need to even send an army.

Besides, the USA would be the DEFENDER; Taiwan has every right to it's indepedence; i can't imagine NATO not helping.

[Captain Seafort]

Iraq is a bad example. we're not fighting an army, we're fighting insurgants who refuse to follow the geneva convention; and the rest of the world expects us to against them. We have to follow a ****** up politically correct RoE, and we get our hands tied in certain situations, if the insurgants are launching rockets ect ect from Mosques, we can't fight back, because they're "holy sites"

And you think abandoning said RoE is a good way to win friends and influence people? Lobbing artillery rounds at mosques will certainly get rid of the RPG, but it will also produce a lot of unhappy locals - who will probably express their unhappiness with more RPG/AKs/whatever else they can get their hands on. Dito with brassing up half the neighbourhood if a sniper takes a potshot.

we're also fighting in a huge metropolis, TRYING not to kill every civilian in there, that also binds our hands quite a bit, it that wasn't an issue, we would of just pounded the insurgants in to the ground without the need to even send an army.

And if you have to fight street-by-street through Taipai or Bejing this won't happen? Yes, if the Iraqi insurgents had decided to play to the US Army's strengths they would have been flattened. That's why they didn't. First rule of war - select abattlefield that plays to your strengths, not your opponent's. You would, however, have needed the army - air power, artillery, armour, etc, can't hold ground - only infantry can do that.

Besides, the USA would be the DEFENDER; Taiwan has every right to it's indepedence; i can't imagine NATO not helping.

I can - NATO's having enough problems adapting to Afghanistan, let alone the Far East. It's entire command structure is based around a major conventional war on the central front with forces already in place, not expeditionary out-of-area operations.

[Granitehewer]

Despite the PRCs' terrible record with human rights, america still allows it (renewed every year) most favoured nation status and thanks to pressure from the japanese government kokkai, the malaysians and others, removed the stipulation concerning human rights(thanks bill clinton,1994), during the next two decades and a half the aeroplane export market to china, alone, is worth over $143 billion dollars according to the several councils on international trade, although recently that figure has escalated to $153billion, either way, there are alot of trade and economic entanglements and enmeshments between the two giants of america and the peoples' republic of china, not to mention between india,russia, western europe and the prc, these umbilical cords are precious and unlikely to be severed easily.
I just hope that if there is a nuclear war, between anyone, that nukes are used in a limited capacity to end the war, not to continue or initiate one.......

[Azrael]

And you think abandoning said RoE is a good way to win friends and influence people? Lobbing artillery rounds at mosques will certainly get rid of the RPG, but it will also produce a lot of unhappy locals - who will probably express their unhappiness with more RPG/AKs/whatever else they can get their hands on. Ditto with brassing up half the neighbourhood if a sniper takes a potshot.

Yes the same locals that are being massecred by the guys in the mosques, i'm sure they'd be so upset. and that's the point, this isn't just a straight up conventional war; this is completely different from the situation with Taiwan and China. in a Conventional War, your objective paticuarlly as the defender is to repel, not invade, you use massive airstrikes and such to cripple economy, and production; so that you destroy their ability to wage war on you. capturing and conquering the nation isn't required.

And if you have to fight street-by-street through Taipai or Bejing this won't happen? Yes, if the Iraqi insurgents had decided to play to the US Army's strengths they would have been flattened. That's why they didn't. First rule of war - select abattlefield that plays to your strengths, not your opponent's. You would, however, have needed the army - air power, artillery, armour, etc, can't hold ground - only infantry can do that.

Again, read above; regarding china. As for Iraq? Despite the horrible strategy going on there; we are still proceeding, in over 4 years of unconvetional warfare, TOTAL COLLITION LOSSES, are under 4000. Despite all the scheming, and guerrilla warfare, we're still not "losing". on top of killing scores upon scores of insurgants, we've also captured and detained/killed Many high ranking members of Al-Queda.

So I can get this out of the way, I do not agree with the Iraq war, nor do I like war in general. But I do study it, and I do believe in human rights. So are we doing the right thing? Morally yes, strategically, no.

Does that mean my country is perfect? No, is yours? No. But it seems the rest of the world falls in to the media's anti american propaganda, painting is all as war mongers; This is not america's war, this is Bush's war. and unfortunetely he's taking us all for the ride.

I can - NATO's having enough problems adapting to Afghanistan, let alone the Far East. It's entire command structure is based around a major conventional war on the central front with forces already in place, not expeditonary out-of-area operations.

NATO's force in Afganistan, is like a peacekeeping force, rather then what would be mobilized for a full scale war..

Also both of our countries respectively are deploying weapons that are space age. some of the things in devolopment are straight out of sci-fi books.