2pid, I really want to know

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Do you really think that you're smart? Do you feel that you're of
above-average intelligence, even just on RAO, let alone the world in
general?

I mean really truly really? No kidding or sarcasm here, please. A
"Yes" answer, BTW, will be construed as kidding or sarcasm.

Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 12:01*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 9, 6:38*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > Do you really think that you're smart? Do you feel that you're of
> > above-average intelligence, even just on RAO, let alone the world in
> > general?
>
> *Do you really think this childish "you're dumb" crap is worth the
> time?

I'll take that as a "No". At least you're being honest.

> *I suppose it is when you feel your arguments can't stand for
> themselves.

2pid, you don't know the difference between an "argument" and a
"premise".

For example, your "premise" that the US would declare all-out war on
China for attacking Taiwan and need thousands of aircraft in the
Taiwan Strait bypasses the "argument" of our going against near;y 40
years of published policy and our own economic well-being. China,
after all, owns a fairly large chunk of our economy.

My "arguments" stand just fine. It is your "premises" that are a bit
weak.

> *What you don't realize is that you who rush to personal insults
> are the real force behind the demise of this group as an audio forum.

Like when you sought me out to accuse me of having the clap?

Remember the weak, ill-metered 'rhyme' you tried to pass off as art?
What attack from me prompted that?

Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 2:09*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 10, 11:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:01*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 6:38*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Do you really think that you're smart? Do you feel that you're of
> > > > above-average intelligence, even just on RAO, let alone the world in
> > > > general?
>
> > > *Do you really think this childish "you're dumb" crap is worth the
> > > time?
>
> > I'll take that as a "No". At least you're being honest.
>
> > > *I suppose it is when you feel your arguments can't stand for
> > > themselves.
>
> > 2pid, you don't know the difference between an "argument" and a
> > "premise".
>
> > For example, your "premise" that the US would declare all-out war on
> > China for attacking Taiwan and need thousands of aircraft in the
> > Taiwan Strait bypasses the "argument" of our going against near;y 40
> > years of published policy and our own economic well-being. China,
> > after all, owns a fairly large chunk of our economy.
>
> Defensive actions against an attempted invasion of Taiwan is
> not "all-out war".

Committing combat elements to defend an area we consider the property
of the attacking nation is a declaration of war on that nation, 2pid.
Taiwan is China.

> My position that the US is committed to maintaining the military
> capability to intervene if required is clealy supported by many
> US officials statements.

And you will not let go of that thought, which is why you're trying to
reargue something. Yap yap yap.

China can ruin our economy if they so chose right now without firing a
shot.

> For example, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his confirmation
> testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee in January
> 2001, affirmed: "The United States will maintain the capacity to
> resist any form of coercion that jeopardizes the security of the
> social or economic system of the people of Taiwan."

And George Bush famously said, "I simply said that I would do
everything to help Taiwan to defend itself."

Perhaps Fighter George and General Powell will fly all of those
aircraft. They'll have to divert them from Afghanistan and Iraq first.
And you never did answer the question as to where we'd station all of
these aircraft. The turnaround time would likely piecemeal them in, or
there would be very long gaps without US support. We'd more likely
force-project with carrier groups. That's what they're for.

What do you suppose the result would be if Quebec seceded from Canada
and we attacked Canada for attempting to stop it? Think about it.

In your lingo: it ain't gonna happen. We won't mount a serious attack
on 'em. We won't commit against 'em. For one thing the voting public
would never stand for it.

Now go back to your basket and lick yourself.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 10, 12:27*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 10, 2:09*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 11:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 10, 12:01*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 9, 6:38*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Do you really think that you're smart? Do you feel that you're of
> > > > > > above-average intelligence, even just on RAO, let alone the world in
> > > > > > general?
>
> > > > > *Do you really think this childish "you're dumb" crap is worth the
> > > > > time?
>
> > > > I'll take that as a "No". At least you're being honest.
>
> > > > > *I suppose it is when you feel your arguments can't stand for
> > > > > themselves.
>
> > > > 2pid, you don't know the difference between an "argument" and a
> > > > "premise".
>
> > > > For example, your "premise" that the US would declare all-out war on
> > > > China for attacking Taiwan and need thousands of aircraft in the
> > > > Taiwan Strait bypasses the "argument" of our going against near;y 40
> > > > years of published policy and our own economic well-being. China,
> > > > after all, owns a fairly large chunk of our economy.
>
> > > Defensive actions against an attempted invasion of Taiwan is
> > > not "all-out war".
>
> > Committing combat elements to defend an area we consider the property
> > of the attacking nation is a declaration of war on that nation, 2pid.
> > Taiwan is China.
>
> * Abondoning the "all-out" position so quickly?

Are you advocating declaring a war that isn't?

> > > My position that the US is committed to maintaining the military
> > > capability to intervene if required is clealy supported by many
> > > US officials statements.
>
> > And you will not let go of that thought, which is why you're trying to
> > reargue something. Yap yap yap.
>
> > China can ruin our economy if they so chose right now without firing a
> > shot.
>
> * And we can ruin theirs. *Difference is, they don't give a ****
> about what their people will suffer.
>
>
>
> > > For example, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his confirmation
> > > testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee in January
> > > 2001, affirmed: "The United States will maintain the capacity to
> > > resist any form of coercion that jeopardizes the security of the
> > > social or economic system of the people of Taiwan."
>
> > And George Bush famously said, "I simply said that I would do
> > everything to help Taiwan to defend itself."
>
> > Perhaps Fighter George and General Powell will fly all of those
> > aircraft. They'll have to divert them from Afghanistan and Iraq first.
>
> *Yawn.
>
> > And you never did answer the question as to where we'd station all of
> > these aircraft. The turnaround time would likely piecemeal them in, or
> > there would be very long gaps without US support. We'd more likely
> > force-project with carrier groups. That's what they're for.
>
> * Carrier groups and Japan.
>
>
>
> > What do you suppose the result would be if Quebec seceded from Canada
> > and we attacked Canada for attempting to stop it? Think about it.
>
> * *Clinton attacked Serbia for stopping the secession of Kosovo.
>
>
>
> > In your lingo: it ain't gonna happen. We won't mount a serious attack
> > on 'em. We won't commit against 'em. For one thing the voting public
> > would never stand for it.
>
> *So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
> Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
> to have serious consequences for the US.
> Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
> The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?
> The US policy is to maintain a position the gives peacful
> negotiated resolution to the problem the only path to solution.
> China is clearly pursuing the capability to have a military option.
> We can make that option much harder to acquire.
>
>
>
> > Now go back to your basket and lick yourself.
>
> *Brilliant display of intellect.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> *So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?

No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your earlier
comment was correct.

> Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
> to have serious consequences for the US.

Even if we seriously opposed it our chances of success are very
limited. They'd have about 150 miles to travel. We'd have thousands.
Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own. We pulled out
years ago.

> Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
> The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?

Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
population and world markets.

> The US policy is to maintain a position the gives peacful
> negotiated resolution to the problem the only path to solution.

Absolutes are seldom the case in the real world, 2pid. There is no
"only".

> China is clearly pursuing the capability to have a military option.
> We can make that option much harder to acquire.

No, we can't. They're getting their technology from the Russians,
among others. All we could possibly do is make exercising it a little
more costly. I'd predict at most a token show to save face.

Do you suppose we'd go nuclear over Taiwan? Would we nuke China if
they chose to nuke Taiwan?

If we aren't willing to go the whole way, we'd better not go at all.

> > Now go back to your basket and lick yourself.
>
> *Brilliant display of intellect.

Yap yap yap.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
> big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
> population and world markets.

As a side issue, Hong Kong's population has grown by 80% since the
transfer in '97. That trend clearly shows the risks of unfettered
immigration.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 12:28*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 10, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > *So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
>
> > No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your earlier
> > comment was correct.
>
> > > Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
> > > to have serious consequences for the US.
>
> > Even if we seriously opposed it our chances of success are very
> > limited. They'd have about 150 miles to travel. We'd have thousands.
> > Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
>
> For a time.

Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.

Not gonna happen.

> Hence our weapons sales to Taiwan.

Indeed. Our tacit admission that they're on their own.

> > We pulled out
> > years ago.
>
> > > Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
> > > The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?
>
> > Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
> > big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
> > population and world markets.
>
> Peaceful transition. *US policy is to achieve the same for Taiwan.

We cannot do that. We can strive to, we can hope for, but we cannot
*do*. The Taiwanese have a say in it.

> > > The US policy is to maintain a position the gives peacful
> > > negotiated resolution to the problem the only path to solution.
>
> > Absolutes are seldom the case in the real world, 2pid. There is no
> > "only".
>
> > > China is clearly pursuing the capability to have a military option.
> > > We can make that option much harder to acquire.
>
> > No, we can't.
>
> * Yes we can.

How would you propose making the Chinese pursuing a military option
"harder to acquire"?

> > They're getting their technology from the Russians,
> > among others.
>
> *But I was told they don't have an answer for the lowly F-16?
> I'm shocked to hear this isn't true....lol.

You're on crack. The F-16 and F-15 can fight with any aircraft out
there right now. That isn't an "answer for".

> > All we could possibly do is make exercising it a little
> > more costly. I'd predict at most a token show to save face.
>
> > Do you suppose we'd go nuclear over Taiwan? Would we nuke China if
> > they chose to nuke Taiwan?
>
> * No. *But it would be the end of trade with China for 100 years.

> > If we aren't willing to go the whole way, we'd better not go at all.
>
> *Lessons learned from Vietnam?

Lessons learned long before that. When would you advocate committing
US lives without seeking total military victory?

> > > > Now go back to your basket and lick yourself.
>
> > > *Brilliant display of intellect.
>
> > Yap yap yap.
>
> * I'll take that as a no, not brilliant but all you have.

Call it "sick of enabling a dog to chase its tail".

Yap yap yap.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 1:28*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 10, 10:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On May 11, 12:28*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > *So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
>
> > > > No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your earlier
> > > > comment was correct.
>
> > > > > Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
> > > > > to have serious consequences for the US.
>
> > > > Even if we seriously opposed it our chances of success are very
> > > > limited. They'd have about 150 miles to travel. We'd have thousands.
> > > > Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
>
> > > For a time.
>
> > Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.
>
> > Not gonna happen.
>
> *Hillary would nuke 'em without batting an eyelash.

Really? How well you seem to know her.

> > > Hence our weapons sales to Taiwan.
>
> > Indeed. Our tacit admission that they're on their own.
>
> > > > We pulled out
> > > > years ago.
>
> > > > > Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
> > > > > The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?
>
> > > > Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
> > > > big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
> > > > population and world markets.
>
> > > Peaceful transition. *US policy is to achieve the same for Taiwan.
>
> > We cannot do that. We can strive to,
>
> Exactly, and maintaining a credible deterrent is part of
> striving.

Duh. 2pid has latched onto another idea.

Go ahead, gnaw your bone. LOL!

> > we can hope for, but we cannot
> > *do*. The Taiwanese have a say in it.
>
> > > > > The US policy is to maintain a position the gives peacful
> > > > > negotiated resolution to the problem the only path to solution.
>
> > > > Absolutes are seldom the case in the real world, 2pid. There is no
> > > > "only".
>
> > > > > China is clearly pursuing the capability to have a military option..
> > > > > We can make that option much harder to acquire.
>
> > > > No, we can't.
>
> > > * Yes we can.
>
> > How would you propose making the Chinese pursuing a military option
> > "harder to acquire"?
>
> *By raising the bar both through improving Taiwans self defense and
> maintaining a credible and formidable rapid response capability.

And then bitching about (and being alarmed about) China spending more
on their military, I suppose. Off to the races...again!

OK, 2pid: you 'win'.

> The F-22 is essential to that role as the strategy to bring
> large numbers of aircraft to the battlefield quickly is
> simply not realistic.

The F-22, pure and simple, is an anachronism.

> > > > They're getting their technology from the Russians,
> > > > among others.
>
> > > *But I was told they don't have an answer for the lowly F-16?
> > > I'm shocked to hear this isn't true....lol.
>
> > You're on crack. The F-16 and F-15 can fight with any aircraft out
> > there right now. That isn't an "answer for".
>
> The argument morphs again. Now no one has an argument
> for the F-16 AND F-15. *Do you ever stay with one position?

Do you ever think about what is being said, and not just make stuff
up?

Here, 2pid, let's look at what was actually said:

"(These same individuals will scream bloody murder if you talk about
controlling defense spending, which represents about 60% of the
federal budget. We *need* F-22 and F-35 fighters, when nobody has
really been able to contend with the F-16...)"

Message-ID: <15721f42-9b89-409f-
>

"The F-15 can handle the Su-27 or Su-30. You worry about 500
MiG-21s that are damned near Korean War vintage. The F-16 can do
circles around those. The R&D is done on both, copies of these
aircraft are 20% of the cost of an F-22, but we need this new
generation and now (according to you) need to be working on the next
one."



"Um, 2pid, we won't be outnumbered any time soon, against any
projected
adversary who is equipped with any more capable aircraft than we had
before."

"No, it was that the F-16 was adequate versus any potential
adversaries. The F-16 is bought and paid for, so new copies don't
requiire the massive R&D spending. You can crank out F-16s at a 5-1
cost savings (actually many, many time less expensive than that since
DOD considers the $100 billion R&D "dead cost" and does not count it
against the cost per aircraft). Ditto F-18s, F-15s, and so on.

So you missed the point, but let's continue."

Message-ID: <15721f42-9b89-409f-
>

> Anyway, I've repeatedly *shown that your statement re the F-16
> is false. *For example.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread43337/pg1

Yes, 2pid, the F-16 will not conted as well as an F-15 against one
type of aircraft the Chinese have. Now rerun your 'computation' with
the F-16 vs. the MiG-17, and the F-15 vs. the Su-27 and 30.

Don't forget to use "air-to-air missiles" and "AWACS" in your answer.

> The Mig-29, even with it's short range which is not much of a problem
> for the Chinese over the Taiwan straight bests the F-16.

How about the F-15, which is the counterpart and not one of your
apples-to-oranges comparisons?

Nope.

> As far as your claim that the F-15 remains dominant,
> that is also highly disputed.

2pid, you have missed the point so often that it has become very
boring.

And you have not factored in AWACS and air-to-air missile technology.

> http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-iaf-usaf-su30-f15-article01.html

Even American fighters, such as Boeing’s F-15, are being sold in
upgraded versions to countries around the world.

Boeing and the others won't like it if we stop this. It is, of course,
the only way to stop fighting ourselves.

> and more directly
>
> http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

"In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability,
enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's
radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can
adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have
seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements
conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St.
Louis facilities."

What a surprise. Boeing and the Air Force think we should buy F-22s.
LOL!

> > > > All we could possibly do is make exercising it a little
> > > > more costly. I'd predict at most a token show to save face.
>
> > > > Do you suppose we'd go nuclear over Taiwan? Would we nuke China if
> > > > they chose to nuke Taiwan?
>
> > > * No. *But it would be the end of trade with China for 100 years.
> > > > If we aren't willing to go the whole way, we'd better not go at all.
>
> > > *Lessons learned from Vietnam?
>
> > Lessons learned long before that. When would you advocate committing
> > US lives without seeking total military victory?
>
> * When the objective is not to escalate to all "out war" with China
> which risks a nuclear exchange
> but to deter a military invasion of Taiwan.

So we'd better not commit any forces under that scenario. It sounds as
though we wouldn't go "all-in". Which isn't much of a deterrent.

Anyway, 2pid, several messages ago (and it HAS been fun watching you
chase your tail...again, but grows boring) I even offered to accept
that your one single Taiwan scenario was valid, just for the sake of
argument.

Does this one single scenario justify us spending $200 billion on a
single aircraft? I don't think that it does. In 2pidspeak: What else
ya got? What other fears do you have that do?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 11:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 11, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On May 11, 1:28*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 10:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 11, 12:28*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 10, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > *So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
>
> > > > > > No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your earlier
> > > > > > comment was correct.
>
> > > > > > > Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
> > > > > > > to have serious consequences for the US.
>
> > > > > > Even if we seriously opposed it our chances of success are very
> > > > > > limited. They'd have about 150 miles to travel. We'd have thousands.
> > > > > > Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
>
> > > > > For a time.
>
> > > > Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.
>
> > > > Not gonna happen.
>
> > > *Hillary would nuke 'em without batting an eyelash.
>
> > Really? How well you seem to know her.
>
> Her history and role in the bombing of Serbia
> gives one a glimpse into her potential for knee jerk reactions.

"Potential" is a long, long way from "would".

Duh.

> > > > > Hence our weapons sales to Taiwan.
>
> > > > Indeed. Our tacit admission that they're on their own.
>
> > > > > > We pulled out
> > > > > > years ago.
>
> > > > > > > Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
> > > > > > > The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?
>
> > > > > > Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
> > > > > > big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
> > > > > > population and world markets.
>
> > > > > Peaceful transition. *US policy is to achieve the same for Taiwan.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 2:40*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > You may wish to repeat yourself endlessly,
>
> No, as I said, for the said for the sake of argument, let's assume
> your weak Taiwan scenario is correct.
>
> Is that worth $200 billion? No? What other scenarios do you have?
>
> > I do not. *I've posted links which have shown your statements are
> > wrong. * Constant repetition won't change that.
>
> So 2pid? What do you have? You keep cutting that question, which does
> not make it go away, but does make it apparent you "got nothing" or
> are afraid to answer it.

Still waiting, 2pid.

I know you want to duck this, but it won't go away.

LOL!