Stinking Fwench Government Whores Sell Soul (again) and Tiawan to Chinese Commies

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Originally posted by Spiffor
True. The fight against communism was a cause completely unimportant for the Americans.

What exactly are you on about here?

That the Yanks didn't let themselves getting nuked when fighting for what was their utmost important cause during decades.
As a cause, Taiwan or the containment of China pale in comparison to the opposition to communism, IMO.

In peacetime, yes. NK is a pissant country who want to ride their missiles to greatness. Not doing them much good, is it?

To the North Korean people? Definitely not. To the North Korean regime? Definitely yes. The reason why Kim Jong Il is still on the throne today is because of his nuke, and because of his conventional means of levelling Seoul as efficiently as with a nuke.
The US can't declare war on North Korea because it holds a terrifying power, having the ability to vaporize two metropolises (Seoul + another). And this is peanuts compared to any other nuclear power.

Now, China crossing those straights, over the dead bodies of thousands of American servicemen is another matter entirely.

I don't know. Did the US nuked Vietnam as the North Vietnamese troops conquered Saigon over the dead bodies of thousands of American servicemen?

Chinese nukes would be challenged to find the US, let alone kill 150 million Americans.

Could you then please explain to me why there is a serious concern that terrotist groups might plant nukes in the US? Do you think the terrorists are smarter and have a better military/intelligence/technology than the Chinese?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It's not entirely ridiculous, because should China have an adequate weaponry, the US won't want to fight a conventional war against them. And at the same time, the US can't let China use force against Taiwan, as they'd be acknowledging the end of their status as sole hyperpower (at the time, it would be a big duh, but one that cannot be acknowledged).

So a defensive alliance that uses all means avalable may indeed become an option.

I still don't think the US will ever defend Taiwan if a war breaks out across the Strait. Maintaining the sole hyperpower status is one thing, facing an enormous economic loss is another. It's not just the Chinese market, mind you, but the PRC has been propping up the US dollar.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Another option is that the US develops a sensible opinion of its place in the world, and acknowledges that it has rivals that can match its power. But I don't see the US doing so without a major diplomatic defeat.

I consider the "coalition of the willing" a major diplomatic defeat for the US, because most countries went along with UN instead of the US.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Originally posted by notyoueither

Originally posted by Spiffor
True. The fight against communism was a cause completely unimportant for the Americans.

What exactly are you on about here?

That the Yanks didn't let themselves getting nuked when fighting for what was their utmost important cause during decades.
As a cause, Taiwan or the containment of China pale in comparison to the opposition to communism, IMO.

I didn't presume you were so ignorant. Have you ever heard of a gent by the name of Kennedy and a certain crisis over missiles in Cuba?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, it is that if PRC invades Taiwan, it is an invalidation of everything done with China since Nixon.

2 or 3 CVBGs may sink because of French weapons supplied to China, but there is no way in hell that Washington is ever going to accept it.

There might be a price to be paid by the sellers of those weapons, as well.

Go figure.

You forgot one important thing. If the PRC invades Taiwan, it will be caused by Taiwan proclaiming independence.

Even the US has already said, in such an event, they wouldn't be defending Taiwan.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I still don't think the US will ever defend Taiwan if a war breaks out across the Strait. Maintaining the sole hyperpower status is one thing, facing an enormous economic loss is another. It's not just the Chinese market, mind you, but the PRC has been propping up the US dollar.

Yup, but with an admin similar to the Bushies, it might happen nonetheless. They clearly have shown they weren't the most responsible bunch, especially when it comes to economic policy

I consider the "coalition of the willing" a major diplomatic defeat for the US, because most countries went along with UN instead of the US.

It was an important diplomatic defeat, in that the US has understood it can't simply boss the other countries around (hence the reason why the US is now, gasp, *negociating* with European countries on diplomatic matters). However, it was also a diplomatic failure on Chirac's side, in that Chirac has shown there is no new "bloc" facing the US, as the "coalition of the unwilling" was an alliance of circumstance, rather than of common interest. It has seriously suffered with the Ukraine bone of contention, btw.

Edit: as such, the US cannot do whatever it pleases, but it still has no rival that can seriously oppose its interests, and thus challenge its hyperpower status. As of today, the US remains the sole hyperpower, wants to remain so, and must deal with a new difficulty. Little more.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I still don't think the US will ever defend Taiwan if a war breaks out across the Strait. Maintaining the sole hyperpower status is one thing, facing an enormous economic loss is another. It's not just the Chinese market, mind you, but the PRC has been propping up the US dollar.

They face the loss the minute the war breaks out.

Incidently, PRC assets get frozen at that point. Good luck with your 'ownership' of anything more than a gromet factory in Fairbanks, Alaska, and even that gets frozen.

[notyoueither]

IOW, the only thing they stand to lose is face by not ***** slapping China back into place.

Chinese understand about face, yes?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It was an important diplomatic defeat, in that the US has understood it can't simply boss the other countries around (hence the reason why the US is now, gasp, *negociating* with European countries on diplomatic matters). However, it was also a diplomatic failure on Chirac's side, in that Chirac has shown there is no new "bloc" facing the US, as the "coalition of the unwilling" was an alliance of circumstance, rather than of common interest. It has seriously suffered with the Ukraine bone of contention, btw.

Edit: as such, the US cannot do whatever it pleases, but it still has no rival that can seriously oppose its interests.

I posit that is going to happen in the short term as multi-lateral diplomacy arises. The US is still the most important player, but any ad hoc bloc of sufficient size can face it down.

In the middle to long term though both the EU and ASEAN may consolidate enough to become permanent blocs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, PRC assets get frozen at that point. Good luck with your 'ownership' of anything more than a gromet factory in Fairbanks, Alaska, and even that gets frozen.

Nevermind, you didn't understand what I said.

[notyoueither]

And I don't think you have a clue of what the stakes are.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I didn't presume you were so ignorant. Have you ever heard of a gent by the name of Kennedy and a certain crisis over missiles in Cuba?

Yes. And apparently, unlike you, I've heard that WW3 didn't happen.

And apparently, unlike you, I've heard that Kennedy did make concessions, just like Khrushtshev, to avoid WW3 (like, say, stop using force against the Castrist regime, which has held even after the SU's collapse). I know the legend looks much better: that Kennedy stood up for his principles, and Khrushtshev backed off like a weasel, but it is only a legend

I also think that a crisis like the Cuba missile crisis, had it happened in a non nuclear world, would have sparked war between the US and the USSR. The main reason why WW3 didn't break on that crisis is because everybody was scared to death, including the pols.

[notyoueither]

And you have no appreciation for how close the world was to oblivion.

So, go for it. Recreate the situation, but this time with many powers instead of two.

I'm sure some mutant will thank your lot for the benefit.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, go for it. Recreate the situation, but this time with many powers instead of two.

I'm sure some mutant will thank your lot for the benefit.

Why should a crisis like that happen between more than two actors? If you don't remember, the world had other nuclear powers at the time, which were very keen of independance (China and France). Despite being there, they didn't jump into the issue in order to worsen it.

I don't see a scenario in which a major nuclear crisis could directly involve more than two parties. And I don't see a scenario in which third parties will try to milk something out of a situation that could risk WW3.

[Shi Huangdi]

Anybody notice this double standard?

US government does something bad: EVIL EVIL AMERICA!

Foreign Government does something bad: Ha, you Americans can do nothing about it! Stop Whining, they are only looking after their own interests!

France in a Democratic nation from the West and is our ally, and shouldn't be making such an irresponsible action.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hey i hear raffy also wants you guys to work on pentacost. what a hoot!
(the traitorous unions are already planning strikes)

If it were only the unions

There are plenty of towns that protest, and many local public services will be closed down on that "working" day, at the mayor's initiative.

I for one can't say that I disagree too much with the move. Not only will it grow our economy by one day (and up to 2, as the friday is often non-worked as well, when the holiday happens on a thursday), it also removes a religion-based holiday. OTOH, I wonder if the official reason why this day is worked will hold: i.e. solidarity with the elderly. If 100% of the money made on that day goes to the elderly, then i'd tip my hat off to the government.

If it's only wages that go to the elderly, and profits go to the pockets of the shareholders as usual, then it'll show once agains how despicable this government is.