[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 -