Eastern Red Army...

[King of the Americas]

...like we'd ever to to War with the world's most populated nation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/international/asia/03CND-CHIN.html?ex=1071118800&en=a20c1843643db8e9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Tiawan IS a 'struggling democracy'. A people actually fighting for independence against it Communist aggressor.

How can we NOT go to War with China?

I mean we went to War with Saddam over shitte he didn't even have. We KNOW China is not a democracy, and that they oppress LOTS of people.

We HAVE to help Tiawan, don't we?

They are on OUR SIDE, right? What kind of ally would we be if we just left them to be consumed by the Communists???

[Jon_in_london]

Dont be silly. Fighting China would be much too much like hard work. Is there much oil in China?

[Luke T.]

The U.S. has always been a strong ally of Formosa/Taiwan. We WILL go to war over it, if it comes to that.

We wouldn't even budge on Quemoy and Matsu...

[Crossbow]

China has nukes, a very large army, and lots, and lots, and lots of people to sell stuff too.

Simply put, China is an impractical enemy.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...like we'd ever to to War with the world's most populated nation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/international/asia/03CND-CHIN.html?ex=1071118800&en=a20c1843643db8e9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Tiawan IS a 'struggling democracy'. A people actually fighting for independence against it Communist aggressor.

How can we NOT go to War with China?

I mean we went to War with Saddam over shitte he didn't even have. We KNOW China is not a democracy, and that they oppress LOTS of people.

We HAVE to help Tiawan, don't we?

They are on OUR SIDE, right? What kind of ally would we be if we just left them to be consumed by the Communists???

Well the thing about that is we hate being nuked. It's just pet peeve we have about nuclear annihilation. Now if I were a gambling man, I would wager that China hates being nuked as well, so I think Taiwan is in no immediate danger.

[King of the Americas]

...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause?

The ability to win a war has always been a factor in deciding whether to go to war or not. Even once a war is started a deciding force in whether to continue a war is whether the war can still be won at any given point. When the war can no longer be won, the side that can not win usually surrenders. A worthy cause means nothing if you do not have the means to implement it, and all war, in the end, boils down to a means to implement something.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause? Pretty much... read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. The object of war is to win. That part is covered on the first page.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Psiload
Pretty much... read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. The object of war is to win. That part is covered on the first page.

Shoot, he needn't even do that. A quick flip through any basic history book should have taught him the same lesson.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Shoot, he needn't even do that. A quick flip through any basic history book should have taught him the same lesson. Oh, there is a lesson "The King" will never learn. He's devoted his life to fighting losing battles. Just check his posting history here at the JREF... he hasn't won one yet, but he keeps coming back for more.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause?

I am afraid that is pretty much the way it has always been.

Have you been out napping for all of recorded history?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Psiload
Oh, there is a lesson "The King" will never learn. He's devoted his life to fighting losing battles. Just check his posting history here at the JREF... he hasn't won one yet, but he keeps coming back for more.

I've noticed. In many ways he reminds me of a toy I had when I was a kid. It was a little clown shaped punching bag weighted at th bottom so that when you punched it and knocked it down, it came right back up for more.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I've noticed. In many ways he reminds me of a toy I had when I was a kid. It was a little clown shaped punching bag weighted at th bottom so that when you punched it and knocked it down, it came right back up for more.

I'll bet the clown had better spelling and punctuation, though.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Jocko


I'll bet the clown had better spelling and punctuation, though.

heheh, better than me or better than him? I am actually a very good speller but a terrible typist.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


heheh, better than me or better than him? I am actually a very good speller but a terrible typist.

Sorry, I meant the KOA. Although he likes to lay blame for his atrocious presentation on his poor typing, you'll notice that he poorly types the same words again and again - the ones that are used correctly, that is.

For a real laugh, ask him to spell "imminent." For an even bigger laugh, ask him to define it.

[King of the Americas]

...to 'win' anything in my bringing this subject up.

I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when the 'fight' looks too ugly, even though it is within our principles to do so.

Tiawan is a struggling democracy, actually WANTING and actively fighting for Freedom.

Don't we have a duty to help them???

I mean what 'duty' did we have to help Iraqis be Free from Saddam???

---

I think we WILL see War with China, sooner than I'd like.

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when the 'fight' looks too ugly, even though it is within our principles to do so.

Yeah, it's called "being realistic".

Baffling concept, huh?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...to 'win' anything in my bringing this subject up.

I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when the 'fight' looks too ugly, even though it is within our principles to do so.

Tiawan is a struggling democracy, actually WANTING and actively fighting for Freedom.

Don't we have a duty to help them???

I mean what 'duty' did we have to help Iraqis be Free from Saddam???

---

I think we WILL see War with China, sooner than I'd like.

We don't have a duty to Taiwan in any way shape or form (I would also argue, though, that we had no duty to Iraq either).

Simply put a war with China would be a waste of lives and resources. Fortuantely they probably feel the same way about war with us. In situations like that, diplomacy usually prevails. If you need an example, simply notice how the Cold War never turned into a shooting war with the USSR.

[Jocko]

I think we're missing the bigger question here -

China's verbal belligerence has always been just that - verbal. The likelihood of any real action is remote at best. But then, I suspect that's a little to much reality to make an impression on KOA.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Simply put, China is an impractical enemy.

Odd.

I would've said the exact same thing to the Chinese about the US...

[Mr. Kook]

Back during the Clinton years China was making aggressive moves towards Taiwan, wanting to take it over. Clinton sent one of our carrier groups there and had it sit between Taiwan and China.

The Cina/Taiwan thing today is exactly the same thing it was then, it's politicians playing games, making threats, and rattling sabres.

There will be on invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese, and there will be no war. This is part of the international political norm, countries making angry noises seeing what they can get away with.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Odd.

I would've said the exact same thing to the Chinese about the US...

You've just defined the guiding principle of diplomacy.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when...

Who's backing down, KOA? Are you higgledy-piggledy again due to the consumption of adult beverages?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Tiawan is...actively fighting for Freedom.

Who's actively fighting, KOA? Have you gotten into the absinthe again??

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Have you gotten into the absinthe again??


And if you have, can you hook me up? ;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony



And if you have, can you hook me up? ;)

I do believe it is illegal in USA.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I do believe it is illegal in USA.

There are ways of getting it by legal means.

[corplinx]

You wouldn't have to defeat the entire red army to liberate Taiwan. My guess is if China made a sudden grab for Taiwan and gained control, they will just burn the entire island down and leave it before letting the US take it back by force.

A war over Taiwan will be lose-lose-lose.

[The Don]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when the 'fight' looks too ugly, even though it is within our principles to do so.

Yep, those sound like the tactics of the schoolground bully.

Look how bravely the US ran away when things got a bit tricky in Vietnam


You even had to wait for the UK to soften up the enemy berfore you were willing to get involved in WWI and WWII (the last paragraph was, in fact, a joke albeit a poor one)



Originally posted by King of the Americas

Tiawan is a struggling democracy, actually WANTING and actively fighting for Freedom.

It's Taiwan Tee-Ay-Eye-Double yew-Ay-En

A brief, relatively unbiased overview of Taiwan's past is here:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taiwantime1.html

I supect if we wait for a while, China will give up claims to Taiwan


Originally posted by King of the Americas

Don't we have a duty to help them???

the only *duty* a country has is to their own self interest. I suspect that being budies with China will prove more rewarding in the long run than being buddies with Taiwan

cI mean what 'duty' did we have to help Iraqis be Free from Saddam???[/B][/QUOTE]

- An historical grudge
- Fear of unstable Middle East

United States self interest !!!!! the only reason why any sensible country would do anything

---

Originally posted by King of the Americas

I think we WILL see War with China, sooner than I'd like.

For reasons of dazzling self interest:

- China's huge market
- No major beef with China
- China's military relative strength
- China's nuclear (nucular) arsenal
- The US' inability to deliver the kind of conventional army (in pure size terms) to defeat China

I think there isn't a hope in heck that the States will go to war with China.

[Garrette]

I absolutely, positively, and without reservation disagree with everything The Don has ever said (purely because his "War of Beastly Ungratefulness and War of Rampant Opportunism" are titles I cannot surpass).

That being said, he's right.

The only duty is to self interest. The difficulty is in defining self interest which can arguably be extended to include what appears to be altruism.

In any case, I've no idea if we go to war. I sincerely doubt it as both sides, if at all rational, should see it as too costly.

However, there is no reason to assume that war, if it comes, would be total. It is far more likely that it would not. Think Falkland Islands.

The US cannot win a war on the ground in China, but that is not an aim nor a necessity in the protection of Taiwan.

China has a massive army, but inadequate means to move it across the Straits to Taiwan and an Air Force insufficient to protect those inadequate means from, initially, the Taiwanese and ultimately the US.

Keeping China out of Taiwan is not the same as defeating China in toto.

In twenty or thirty years, though, China may very well change the local military balance. Given the successful application of enough capital from their now thriving markets, they could build a credible navy and sufficiently advanced air force.

I think the US might step in prior to an invasion to protect Taiwan, but if China (in twenty or thirty years) manages to launch a successful invasion prior to any practical response by the US and are able to present to the world a fait accompli, then I doubt we would fight to re-free Taiwan. That sort of power projection against a formidable enemy would be costly indeed.

[ingoa]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King of the Americas
...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much... read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. The object of war is to win. That part is covered on the first page.

To help KOA a little bit: Yes the objective is to win. But if I get my history right... During the last few hundred years MOST of the wars were lost by the party who started it. May they haven't read Sun Tzu. :con2:
More likely they misjudged the balance of forces, the resolve, the economics, whatever. War are started for the weirdest reasons.

[The Don]

World War 1

- Austro-Hungary (loser) declared war on Serbia
- Germany (loser) declared war on Russia
- France (winner) declared war on both
- Britain and Empire (winner) declared war on both

Full details here : http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/declarationsofwar.htm

World War 2

- Britain and Empire (winner) declared war on Germany
- France (winner) declared war on Germany
- United States (winner) declared war on Japan


The whole declaration thing is very confusing BUT very few countries start a war believing they're gopng to lose. What often happens is:

- They mis-judge the response (Argentina didn't believe that the UK would care about the Falklands)
- It "gets big" on them. Hitler believed/hoped that Britain would join on his side and that the U.S. wouldn't get involved at all
- They f*** it up right royally (Hitler invading Russia and micromanaging the war)

But they all went in believing they would win

[ingoa]

Don,
well most of the times wars don't start with a war declaration.

Although the USA declared war to Japan, Japan started the war.

In WW1 it was essentially Austria and Germany which started the war and with all the previously scripted escalations.

In WW2 it was almost the same. When GB and France declared war to Germany, German tanks where already on their way to Warsaw.

Of course people start wars with the expectation to win. But I consider it astonishing that this expectation is so often wrong.

Hitler knew that he would take on Europe from the beginning. And it was IMHO quite obvious that at some point the US would join in. You cannot take on the whole world and win. By the way, when was the last a country was successfully conquered and held for a longer time? The whole idea was crazy from the beginning.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by ingoa
Don,


Of course people start wars with the expectation to win. But I consider it astonishing that this expectation is so often wrong.

Hitler knew that he would take on Europe from the beginning. And it was IMHO quite obvious that at some point the US would join in. You cannot take on the whole world and win. By the way, when was the last a country was successfully conquered and held for a longer time? The whole idea was crazy from the beginning.

Yes, but the point is that countries generally don't start wars KNOWING that they are likely to lose.

Even in the case of Hitler, he thought they could win it. He was wrong, and many of his military advisors may well have known it. His opinion was the one that counted, though, and his opinion was that they could win.

[MRC_Hans]

I have been trading with companies in Taiwan, I have even been there ;). I can assure you that the last thing they would want was the USA to come barging in on their little ding-dong with China (People's Republic of China, that is, as you may know, Taiwan is the Republic of China).

While we were corresponding with one company, there was what the media reported as a "major crisis" between China and Taiwan. So we asked them, a bit anxiously, how this might influence our cooperation. They answered, essentially: "Oh, that's just a bit of political display. Business as usual."

Practically all large Taiwanese industries are investing heavily in plants in China. Whatever the politics, China cannot afford going really rough on Taiwan.

No, I am not sure Taiwan is struggling for freedom from China. I rather suspect they are waiting to take it over ;).

Hans

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Don
World War 2

- France (winner) ...
-

Winner, eh? I guess they like to think that.. ;)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by BTox


Winner, eh? I guess they like to think that.. ;)

Well in the end they were, I suppose?