On May 11, 5:50=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 11, 1:28=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 10:52=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 11, 12:28=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 10, 1:15=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On May 10, 2:56=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > =A0So 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
thousand=
s.
> > > > > Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
>
> > > > For a time.
>
> > > Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.
>
> > > Not gonna happen.
>
> > =A0Hillary 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 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? =A0Chinese 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. =A0US 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!
Intellectual surrender noted.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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
opti=
on.
> > > > > > We can make that option much harder to acquire.
>
> > > > > No, we can't.
>
> > > > =A0 Yes we can.
>
> > > How would you propose making the Chinese pursuing a military option
> > > "harder to acquire"?
>
> > =A0By raising the bar both through improving Taiwans self defense and
> > maintaining a credible and formidable rapid response capability.
>
> And then *****ing about (and being alarmed about) China spending more
> on their military, I suppose. Off to the races...again!
>
> OK, 2pid: you 'win'.
That is obvious.
>
> > 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.
IYO already shown to be based upon falsehoods and
misconceptions.
>
> > > > > They're getting their technology from the Russians,
> > > > > among others.
>
> > > > =A0But 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. =A0Do you ever stay with one position?
>
> Do you ever think about what is being said, and not just make stuff
> up?
It's your words.
>
> 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...)"
No mention of F-15, and wrong.
>
> Message-ID: <15721f42-9b89-409f-
> b78b-9b9958132...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "The F-15 can handle the Su-27 or Su-30.
Wrong
> 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."
Wrong
You may wish to repeat yourself endlessly,
I do not. I've posted links which have shown your statements are
wrong. Constant repetition won't change that.
ScottW
|
