• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell said China plotting to take over US

j-mac said:
but they do care about Taiwan don't they? And that involves us doesn't it?


j-mac
Click to expand...
The US would be absolutely nucking futs to go to war to protect Taiwan from the mainland. That is definitely not going to trigger WWIII.
 
j-mac said:
but they do care about Taiwan don't they? And that involves us doesn't it?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Only so long as we care for it. I mean, if China really went in after Taiwan then we'd have a huge choice to face. And it may be that we turn our backs on it instead of go to war against China.
 
j-mac said:
I thought so...Well consider the source I always say....

so all conservatives are stupid...Very nice. I guess I'll take that over just being a jack ass.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Here j-mac, If I can't prove why all conservatives are stupid, I'll at the very least explain why you are stupid. Coronado and ric27 were having a conversation regarding the mythological belief that O'Donnell has that China was to invade the United States. Now I took issue with the conversation because not only is it stupid to believe that China is to invade the U.S. in the future, it's also nonsensical from the perspective of political science, philosophy and history. The economic loss piled up with the innumerable amount of people(most of the poor peasants in Capitalist-China) it would affect would be more than enough for China to simply tell itself that it's not worth it.

Now, I know to somebody as stupid as you the proposal of a conspiracy theory as a legitimate opinion would be nothing more than a 'different view'. But the reality is that in the real world, saying such things is seen as a sign of stupidity, ignorance and all other knowledge related illnesses which plague the Conservative base of the American right. So what did I do? I commented to Coronado that such opinions should not be taken seriously as they are nothing more than an effort by insignificant people to be seen as relevant. This theory regarding human nature was put forth in a book I read by Matt Taibi, who by the way is a great satirist of American life.

Now personally? I hold no grudges against you. I just find you to be stupid because stupid people as I have witnessed them on this forum hold firm in the belief that red herrings are to be taken seriously. Regardless of the fact that they bear zero relevance to what is being discussed in the thread. Now, I know that the concept of context may seem to be alien and far too complex for you as you have just displayed a complete inability to see a difference in satire and political theory but please try to keep up? I did not for one second state that Matt Taibi was right in his beliefs all the time. I simply stated that in my opinion he was correct in his diagnosis of the kind of stupidity that plagues people like you and ric27.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
The US would be absolutely nucking futs to go to war to protect Taiwan from the mainland.
Click to expand...

What are your reasons for saying that?

That is definitely not going to trigger WWIII.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that we WON'T eventually fight a war with China is living in a fool's paradise.
 
ric27 said:
What are your reasons for saying that?



Anyone who thinks that we WON'T eventually fight a war with China is living in a fool's paradise.
Click to expand...
Simple cost/benefit analysis is why we won't fight the PRC for Taiwan. This has nothing to do with China, by the way. They know we aren't going to intervene in what they consider a domestic matter, other than to sell arms to Taiwan.
 
Hatuey said:
Here j-mac, If I can't prove why all conservatives are stupid, I'll at the very least explain why you are stupid. Coronado and ric27 were having a conversation regarding the mythological belief that O'Donnell has that China was to invade the United States. Now I took issue with the conversation because not only is it stupid to believe that China is to invade the U.S. in the future, it's also nonsensical from the perspective of political science, philosophy and history. The economic loss piled up with the innumerable amount of people(most of the poor peasants in Capitalist-China) it would affect would be more than enough for China to simply tell itself that it's not worth it.

Now, I know to somebody as stupid as you the proposal of a conspiracy theory as a legitimate opinion would be nothing more than a 'different view'. But the reality is that in the real world, saying such things is seen as a sign of stupidity, ignorance and all other knowledge related illnesses which plague the Conservative base of the American right. So what did I do? I commented to Coronado that such opinions should not be taken seriously as they are nothing more than an effort by insignificant people to be seen as relevant. This theory regarding human nature was put forth in a book I read by Matt Taibi, who by the way is a great satirist of American life.

Now personally? I hold no grudges against you. I just find you to be stupid because stupid people as I have witnessed them on this forum hold firm in the belief that red herrings are to be taken seriously. Regardless of the fact that they bear zero relevance to what is being discussed in the thread. Now, I know that the concept of context may seem to be alien and far too complex for you as you have just displayed a complete inability to see a difference in satire and political theory but please try to keep up? I did not for one second state that Matt Taibi was right in his beliefs all the time. I simply stated that in my opinion he was correct in his diagnosis of the kind of stupidity that plagues people like you and ric27.
Click to expand...

Thats quite offensive
diagnosis of the kind of stupidity that plagues people like you and ric27
Click to expand...
 
ric27 said:
What are your reasons for saying that?
Click to expand...

Because a war with China will be very risky and expensive in both human and dollar terms. It's a very stupid thing to go to war against China and we wouldn't really get anything out of it. What the hell do we get by protecting Taiwan? Nadda, zip, nothing! More debt and more dead Americans is all that will result. Coronado is absolutely right, the US would be absolutely insane and stupid to go to war against China to protect Taiwan

ric27 said:
Anyone who thinks that we WON'T eventually fight a war with China is living in a fool's paradise.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think we should only go to war against China if China directly attacks us.
 
ric27 said:
Thats quite offensive
Click to expand...

Why is being called 'stupid' offensive? I think you should take it as a sign that you need to better yourself. Not an insult. There is a cure. It's called logic. Your beliefs as illogical and thus to me they're nothing more than the rantings of somebody who is currently 'stupid'. Look at it this way, if your beliefs and application of history were actually persuasive enough, it would be I who would consider myself as stupid in regards to a particular subject. It has happened many times. I have had long drawn out discussions with people on topics that I admitted I was stupid on. It's when you take your opinion to be the reality regardless of what that reality is that you become truly stupid. Not when you first admit that it's nothing more than an opinion and second are open to discussion. As this conservation has drawn out it has become obvious to me that you're stupid because of the fact that your arguments are not based on any logical compiling of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
Simple cost/benefit analysis is why we won't fight the PRC for Taiwan. This has nothing to do with China, by the way. They know we aren't going to intervene in what they consider a domestic matter, other than to sell arms to Taiwan.
Click to expand...

China already published a book on the 9/11 attacks, a few years before they happened. Written by a pair of Chinese Generals. They think long term. By the way, they already have aircraft carriers, and are rapidly getting more from the Russians. They think differently from us, and have the hands in all the pockets here already.

There have been public statements by Chinese military leadership about how they'll vaporize L.A. if we don't give them Taiwan. In China those guys get promoted. Here they'd get fired and be forced to attend a Chinese cultural awareness seminar.
 
ric27 said:
There have been public statements by Chinese military leadership about how they'll vaporize L.A. if we don't give them Taiwan. In China those guys get promoted. Here they'd get fired and be forced to attend a Chinese cultural awareness seminar.
Click to expand...

Evidence plz?
 
Hatuey said:
Why is being called 'stupid' offensive? I think you should take it as a sign that you need to better yourself. Not an insult. There is a cure. It's called logic. Your beliefs as illogical and thus to me they're nothing more than the rantings of somebody who is currently 'stupid'.
Click to expand...

Attack/discredit the messenger because the message is uncomfortable to you?...

Why don't you attack my message?
 
ric27 said:
Thats why its important, the US stays ahead of the curve
Click to expand...

The reality is that power remains the principal safeguard against war. To draw from Henry Kissinger, there is no historic evidence that "peace is the normal condition among states." While democracy, international law, treaties, relationships, etc., can mitigate the risk of war, they cannot completely substitute for a lack of sufficient power when critical national interests clash. China keenly understands the importance of the balance of power. U.S. policy makers would do well to do the same, as the world is not an idealistic place nor is it unipolar.

Having said all that, I don't believe war is the most likely outcome even as China gains power. At present, a Sino-U.S. war would inflict substantial damage on both parties (even excluding a nuclear exchange). The benefits don't outweigh the costs for either side. Power realities promote deterrence of conflict. Nonetheless, there are some critical differences in interests e.g., Taiwan. There is common agreement in favor of a unified China by peaceful means. But should China seek to pursue unity through force, the rules could change. One could argue that the U.S. would ultimately blink and step aside from such a conflict. But doing so would imperil critical U.S. interests ranging from relationships with major trading partners i.e., Japan and South Korea, that would be demoralized by U.S. abdication, to open passage in vital shipping lanes. Under such a scenario, one could reasonably expect renewed arms races in East Asia and likely greater instability as U.S. abdication would create a dangerous power vacuum. Hence, my guess is that risky as a military operation would be, the U.S. would intervene in the case of a China-Taiwan conflict unless Taiwan acted to provoke the conflict e.g., by openly asserting its independence.

We are also becoming rivals for the same resource, oil. The world isn't close to running out of oil, so the price of oil hasn't gone up because of low supply, rather its higher demand. That and the fact that we haven't built a new oil refinery in 30 years.
Click to expand...

That's another future faultline. In a future where resource scarcity is one plausible scenario, resource nationalism could assert itself. China's growing navy reflects China's desire to assure reliable access to natural resources, especially oil. China's relationship with Iran also reflects such dependence, as well.

Already, there were reports that China had simply halted shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan to extract the release of a Chinese ship captain. China initially refused to comment (confirmation would have triggered a trade dispute at the WTO) and later denied any policy change. That allowed China to exert leverage and avoid a trade war. China, in other words, is a keen practioner of power politics.

Finally, one has to understand that China's desire to strengthen itself is also a function of a long, tortured past that saw alternating periods of power and weakness, sometimes destructive fragmentation and instability. China very much craves stability and is seeking to translate its growing economic power into the broader means of assuring itself the kind of stability that had proved all too fleeting in its past.
 
The message is schlock, you dont seem to get that and now the attention is turned towards you.
 
ric27 said:
China already published a book on the 9/11 attacks, a few years before they happened. Written by a pair of Chinese Generals. They think long term. By the way, they already have aircraft carriers, and are rapidly getting more from the Russians. They think differently from us, and have the hands in all the pockets here already.

There have been public statements by Chinese military leadership about how they'll vaporize L.A. if we don't give them Taiwan. In China those guys get promoted. Here they'd get fired and be forced to attend a Chinese cultural awareness seminar.
Click to expand...
Amazon.com: Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America (9780971680722): Qiao Liang, Wang Xiangsui: Books

Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The book simply says that to beat the US one has to think outside the box. Some clown at WND slapped a picture of the WTC on the front in 2002, cashed in on the fears of "yellow peril" and laughed all the way to the bank.

Yes, they think differently than you. You just fail to demonstrate a grasp of how it is that they think.

As to generals, how many generals in the US run around making such statements about other countries? Lots, and it's all just a bunch of talk. Fortunately people with a much stronger grasp on reality than you have the reigns of the PLA in hand.

I suggest you retreat to the ME forum where you actually know what the **** you're talking about.
 
ric27 said:
Attack/discredit the messenger because the message is uncomfortable to you?...

Why don't you attack my message?
Click to expand...

I did. I explained that there is absolutely no logic to a Chinese attack on the U.S. - China would end up losing more economically and socially than the U.S. - not only would the U.S. government decide to declare our debt to China as no longer existing, we would also essentially ruin China from an economic perspective as - gasp - we're their MAIN CUSTOMERS. See why your argument is illogical yet? It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with your basic understanding of what is economically profiting on a global scale.

Invading the only people who buy from you in bulk and are responsible for most of your growth? Not politically savvy.

Not invading the only people who buy from you in bulk and are responsible for most of your growth? Politically savvy.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Finally, one has to understand that China's desire to strengthen itself is also a function of a long, tortured past that saw alternating periods of power and weakness, sometimes destructive fragmentation and instability. China very much craves stability and is seeking to translate its growing economic power into the broader means of assuring itself the kind of stability that had proved all too fleeting in its past.
Click to expand...
QED.

China has been the world's bitch for way too long. Think about the Opium Wars. Think about the situation with Imperial Japan prior to WWII. They want to a) get back to controlling their own destiny, and b) be left alone.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Having said all that, I don't believe war is the most likely outcome even as China gains power. At present, a Sino-U.S. war would inflict substantial damage on both parties (even excluding a nuclear exchange). The benefits don't outweigh the costs for either side. Power realities promote deterrence of conflict. Nonetheless, there are some critical differences in interests e.g., Taiwan. There is common agreement in favor of a unified China by peaceful means. But should China seek to pursue unity through force, the rules could change. One could argue that the U.S. would ultimately blink and step aside from such a conflict. But doing so would imperil critical U.S. interests ranging from relationships with major trading partners i.e., Japan and South Korea, that would be demoralized by U.S. abdication, to open passage in vital shipping lanes. Under such a scenario, one could reasonably expect renewed arms races in East Asia and likely greater instability as U.S. abdication would create a dangerous power vacuum. Hence, my guess is that risky as a military operation would be, the U.S. would intervene in the case of a China-Taiwan conflict unless Taiwan acted to provoke the conflict e.g., by openly asserting its independence.
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago.....China bought an aircraft carrier from Russia and is in the process of refurbishing it, as well as developing carrier aircraft. If they can put together a carrier battle group, supported by land based aircraft and missles from China, they could deny us a presence in the South China Sea. It isn't the best territory for big, deep water nuke subs and we don't have our smaller, littoral water subs built yet.

It also reminds me of the silly uproar about the Dubai ports deal. We're all concerned about a pretty legit Arab company running a port in Jersey, (since no US company can afford the Union ass raping) while the Chinese army owns the Panama Canal, and most of the ports on the West Coast.

That's another future faultline. In a future where resource scarcity is one plausible scenario, resource nationalism could assert itself. China's growing navy reflects China's desire to assure reliable access to natural resources, especially oil. China's relationship with Iran also reflects such dependence, as well.

Already, there were reports that China had simply halted shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan to extract the release of a Chinese ship captain. China initially refused to comment (confirmation would have triggered a trade dispute at the WTO) and later denied any policy change. That allowed China to exert leverage and avoid a trade war. China, in other words, is a keen practioner of power politics.

Finally, one has to understand that China's desire to strengthen itself is also a function of a long, tortured past that saw alternating periods of power and weakness, sometimes destructive fragmentation and instability. China very much craves stability and is seeking to translate its growing economic power into the broader means of assuring itself the kind of stability that had proved all too fleeting in its past.
Click to expand...

I suspect the conflict will arise due to a grab of resources. China is growing thirsty on an industrial level not seen since the '50s. Unfortunately for us, their military will likely be complete with its modernization.

China knows that if they lost a few hundred million in a war with the US, they dont give a rats ass. However, lose a few hundred million citizens in the USA, and it's a disaster. China has been building up it's military power for the past few years using dollars they made off us selling us tools, tv's and clothing. The American consumer is basically financing the Chinese military.

And on the "War on Terror"....The only real winner of this War on Terror is China. the Islamists will keep hitting us and teh US can't really win with the rules as they are.

China however sits and grows through it all while our attention is elsewhere.
 
Coronado said:
The US would be absolutely nucking futs to go to war to protect Taiwan from the mainland. That is definitely not going to trigger WWIII.
Click to expand...

Do we, or do we not have a treaty to protect Taiwan against Chinese aggression?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom