Thread: USAF general: China military buildup 'incredibly disturbing'...

Oh, and uh, btw...

China's credit rating is already lower than ours. It is AA-

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...=1221187348494

Originally Posted by TRS

I would have to disagree with you on this as a whole.

The reason the US looks weak in comparison to WW2 is the fight has changed. In stead of rolling is and obliterating the enemy war machine. The US picks targets with as little civilian deaths as possible. The enemy knows this now,and will put its military in civilian populated areas.

That doesn't in any way say why I am wrong.

Originally Posted by riza

Now you're trolling, are you seriously saying a person cannot be Taiwanese / Chinese / American at the same time?

You're arguing with a well-known Neo-Con troll, don't bother.

Now you're trolling

Then you should report me. Trolling is against the forum rules.

are you seriously saying a person cannot be Taiwanese / Chinese / American at the same time?

When did I say that?

Originally Posted by Catch

You're arguing with a well-known Neo-Con troll, don't bother.

I posted pictures of myself before and a few people here know my facebook.

I can even post my passport (I have two of them, one for China/Taiwan and one for US).

Neo-con? He's a fool then. He needs to read the policies for neo-conservatives. It's basically "rich men only" club.

It's from an agency that isn't known for leaning one way or another. Stop trolling with a bias poll.

If you believe I am trolling, then report me.

You have failed to provide evidence that your poll is superior to mine.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

When did I say that?

So answer me. Are you saying I am not Chinese and American?

Originally Posted by riza

I posted pictures of myself before and a few people here know my facebook.

I can even post my passport (I have two of them, one for China/Taiwan and one for US).

Neo-con? He's a fool then. He needs to read the policies for neo-conservatives. It's basically "rich men only" club.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

If you believe I am trolling, then report me.

You have failed to provide evidence that your poll is superior to mine.

Trolling is allowed, the rules aren't enforced for Cons.

My poll isn't bias, that simple.

Originally Posted by riza

That doesn't in any way say why I am wrong.

I never said you were wrong. I said I disagreed with you and why I did.

Me: The US is not pragmatist though. That is my point. We have done things that are not necessarily in our own economic interest purely for defense or ideological reasons. Iraq was an excellent example of that.

Unfortunate because we have to ask "at what cost?" You and I suffer as average citizen. Rising gas cost, inflation, etc.

But the long term benefits manifest as increased security. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory -

We are gaining something. As for the cost...we have weathered far worse than this.

Me: China knows this. That is why China will not do anything they think will provoke us...such as an obnoxious invasion of Taiwan.

China has always been a peaceful nation.

...except when they threaten to invade their neighbors.

The PRC does not own stuff just because they declare they do. Our actions have made that clear. We tell them what they want to hear, and then do what we want anyway. We did it with Iraq and we did it with Taiwan.

What this should really tell you is that the US does not really recognize PRC sovereignty. If we did, we would not be doing this stuff. We dont do this to Canada or Britain or Japan.

Me: I am sure Saddam thought that too. Where is he now?

With Saddam it wasn't the same.

Yeah yeah I know...its never the same. I am sure Saddam told himself that as well.

You ruin other people's country but in turn you create more enemies than you can handle. Eventually it'll overwhelm you.

You would think so, but we have never been stronger than we are right now.

Look at what happens. We lost our twin towers, etc.

Now Iraq is a democracy and there is a cascade of revolutions in the Middle east. Yeah, some "lesson" LOL

Even the EU is despising you

We are obviously ok with being despised. So long as we get what we want.

Me: Why would we need to invade them?

Why would we go to war with China?

I explained why...in defense of Taiwan. We would not need to invade China to do that. We would not need to engage in a ground war on the mainland to do that.

We would only need an overwhelming airforce and navy...and we have both.

That being said, I agree that a war with China is extremely unlikely. They are pragmatists, and therefore predictable. They will not act against their own interests. They are probably not going to provoke us over Taiwan.

Me: Why would we need to fight a ground war?

What are Marines and Army for?

For fighting ground wars. The fact that we have the tools to fight a ground war does not necessarily mean we will need them in this case. Not sure where you got the idea to the contrary.

Ground wars are only necessary for invasions to occupy land. In this scenario we are not trying to occupy their land...we are simply keeping them out of Taiwan. China would have a real tough time getting troops to Taiwan with the American navy encapsulating the island. One of the reasons China's Navy is so crappy is their lack of transports...their military is currently designed for mainland defense, not power projection.

Actually US is committed to using nukes first. She would not sign the NFU treaty. On the other hand, China signed the treaty.

That doesnt bode well for China in a conflict with us.

The US is not "committed" to using nukes first. In fact, IMO, it is very unlikely the US would nuke first, even if we were attacked. But the US employs this position as strategic ambiguity...the fact that our enemies are not SURE that we would not use them first makes them think twice about attacking us or pissing us off.

And on the contrary, the EU whined about US not signing the treaty.

It isnt the contrary...you repeated exactly what I just said. "Unlike most nations, the US has never committed to not using nukes in a first strike. The Europeans on here have whined about that many times." Thats what I said.

Likely they are in the minority.
So Robert Gates and RAND report, the two I named are minority?

You were talking about an invasion, not defense.

What about Goldman Sachs which reported Chinese economic dominance?

Standard and Poor doesnt seem to agree with them. Thats why they gave China a AA- rating...even Canada is higher (AAA).

Me: A war with China would supersede all other wars. We would pull forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever and redeploy them.

And completely losing our effort against the "war on terror"?

Correct.

I am the first to admit that China is far more militarily dangerous than any other nation we face. More than all of the Middle East combined. Fighting China would not be a trivial thing. The war on terror would take a back seat to any conflict with China.

China is more powerful than the whole of the middle east. Than every terrorist group combined. Only Russia is more dangerous (but Russia is less of a threat because they are a democracy).

Maybe losing our oil and losing the ability to protect our "ally" Israel?

Yes.

I am glad, because most people think of China as still using sticks and stones.

Their government isnt.

We would have no hope of defeating them either. The Japanese couldn't put down China during WW1/2

Again, you are talking about INVASION. That is not the same thing. We would not need to invade China to defend Taiwan. We would not need to invade China to destroy them either (if it came to that). All of that can be done without ground troops.

Invasions are only necessary if the goal is to occupy the land. We could bomb indefinitely after gaining air superiority.

You certainly DON'T know what the US gov't really thinks either

Of course we do, because they tell us. They have to, because they want our vote next election.

By contrast, the PRC does not need to care what the people think. The PRC is the only option they have anyway.

As for control, US and Chinese system work completely differently. The average Chinese do not want to use the US-style democracy

We'll never know since they are not allowed to speak freely anyway. And I do not accept you as their official interpreter.

Me: So no, I dont accept you as the official interpreter of the PRC. Sorry.

At least I lived there

No, you CLAIM to have lived there. And according to polls your views are not the majority.

Actually more than 50% of Taiwanese want independence.

That seems to contradict what you have been implying.