Re: 2pid, I really want to know

On May 10, 12:27=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 10, 2:09=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 11:38=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 12:01=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 6:38=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
>
> > > > =A0Do 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.
>
> > > > =A0I 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?

>
> > My position that the US is committed to maintaining the military
> > capability to intervene if required is clealy sup****ted 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 sup****t. 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