“If we need to take it, we’ll take it. (America) can’t stop us,”

Wonder what our HUMINT IS in China....Pakistan is a worthless Allie.....Most they could do is tie up some forces facing them......Which I don't think would be enough help
 
That is a logical fallacy. Keeping a missile does not equate to doing anything they want.

They can't literally do whatever they want. There is a breaking point that comes with enough provocation.

Honestly though, I do not see the US starting war without a clear and direct attack against them. The same goes for China.
Ok, let's say they make a play for the ME, would we let that stand?
 
Ok, let's say they make a play for the ME, would we let that stand?

Depending on what it is, it could provoke a limited war where troops only engage in that region. Can you give an example?
 
Actually it isn't. You are a member of the subset anybody's, right? It is YOUR signature. It wouldn't be YOUR guess. YOU would know, right? So, why do you have that in your signature?

It's anybodies guess.
 
Ok, let's say they make a play for the ME, would we let that stand?

Depending on what it is, it could provoke a limited war where troops only engage in that region. Can you give an example?
Sure, oil. It is a strategic asset, right? China does rely on that region for their oil, right? Does it matter if it is limited or not? It would still be a war with China, right?
 
Actually it isn't. You are a member of the subset anybody's, right? It is YOUR signature. It wouldn't be YOUR guess. YOU would know, right? So, why do you have that in your signature?

It's anybodies guess.
That was even more than less than helpful. If you don't want to say, that's fine by me. We are only as sick as the secrets we keep.
 
Sure, oil. It is a strategic asset, right? China does rely on that region for their oil, right? Does it matter if it is limited or not? It would still be a war with China, right?

No, the US would not go to war with China merely over petroleum.
 
Research????? I used to live there!!!!!

It didn't seem to make you any less of an idiot.


No --- but it sure embarrasses you, doesn't it?

I was stationed there with the USAF in the mid-70s. Later, I supported the SE Asia Plans division at the Pentagon. So, when I tell you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you can take THAT to the bank.
 
Last edited:
I was stationed there with the USAF in the mid-70s. Later, I supported the SE Asia Plans division at the Pentagon. So, when I tell you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you take THAT to the bank.

And when I tell you that you are a dumb fuck, you can also take that to the bank. :laugh2:
 
Sure, oil. It is a strategic asset, right? China does rely on that region for their oil, right? Does it matter if it is limited or not? It would still be a war with China, right?

No, the US would not go to war with China merely over petroleum.
Well, it's a little more than that. It is a strategic supply of the world's oil. Besides are you telling me that we haven't gone to war over oil before? You are starting to disappoint me.
 
Actually they do.

No, actually they don't, and not knowing that is why you believe we can't win

A nuclear war between the US and China would create a nuclear winter that would end all life on earth.
No, we would launch a nuclear war, they would perish and there would be a nuclear winter that would only end all life within that region of Asia...SEE Japan

Even if that is not the case, they certainly have the capabilities to obliterate every major city in the US.
No, they cannot reach us if they do not exist...and they cannot reach us with current capabilities either. The only way to eliminate any threat to us is to eliminate the threat...would you agree?
 
I don't think a large scale amphibious assault under fire is possible these days........One Ohio of Tomahawks ruins your whole day.
 
"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement." Ayn Rand
 

Forum List

Back
Top