Re: 2pid, I really want to know

On May 10, 2:56=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
o=
f
> > > > > > above-average intelligence, even just on RAO, let alone the
worl=
d in
> > > > > > general?
>
> > > > > =A0Do you really think this childish "you're dumb" crap is worth
t=
he
> > > > > 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.
>
> =A0 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 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.
>
> =A0 And we can ruin theirs. =A0Difference 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.
>
> =A0Yawn.
>
> > 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.
>
> =A0 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.
>
> =A0 =A0Clinton 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.
>
> =A0So 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? =A0Chinese 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.
>
> =A0Brilliant display of intellect.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -