Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China will have extreme difficulties trying to cross the straights. Taiwan is safe." It's been suggested that China may try to blockade the strait and attempt to starve Taiwan into submission. Interjection to break the blockade could spark a conflict. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China will have extreme difficulties trying to cross the straights. Taiwan is safe. It's been suggested that China may try to blockade the strait and attempt to starve Taiwan into submission. Interjection to break the blockade could spark a conflict." blockade is a thing of the past when tiawan can use antiship defense to counter that along wit US support. Tiawan is safe from china's bluster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think that they are going to invade Taiwan With what happening in the Ukraine are we heading to world war3" Nope.. china would have so much to lose economically it’s in their interest to posture but don’t do anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You might need to take another look at China. That's 40 years out of date. Not many can build an archipelago of islands in the middle of an ocean. Taiwanese are outnumbered by 10000 to 1.." you think tiawan not going to see a invasion coming and act accordingly? Explain how china getting there without suffering massive losses. Both air and sea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taiwan wouldn't stand a chance even if China phoned them 3 weeks prior to forewarn them they were coming. Think we're underestimating China, over estimating Taiwan. China wields by far the world's largest military, with 2.8 million soldiers, sailors and airmen—twice the American number. " again how is china crossing the straights with a 3:1 ratio force going to achieve that objective? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taiwan wouldn't stand a chance even if China phoned them 3 weeks prior to forewarn them they were coming. Think we're underestimating China, over estimating Taiwan. China wields by far the world's largest military, with 2.8 million soldiers, sailors and airmen—twice the American number. again how is china crossing the straights with a 3:1 ratio force going to achieve that objective? " it's not the majority of that force would be destroyed. Airborne and sea . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taiwan wouldn't stand a chance even if China phoned them 3 weeks prior to forewarn them they were coming. Think we're underestimating China, over estimating Taiwan. China wields by far the world's largest military, with 2.8 million soldiers, sailors and airmen—twice the American number. " 2.8 million does not matter if you don't have the transportation to get them.there. that's a lot of planes and landing ships.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taiwan wouldn't stand a chance even if China phoned them 3 weeks prior to forewarn them they were coming. Think we're underestimating China, over estimating Taiwan. China wields by far the world's largest military, with 2.8 million soldiers, sailors and airmen—twice the American number. 2.8 million does not matter if you don't have the transportation to get them.there. that's a lot of planes and landing ships. "I'm sure they'll find a way if the want to. Many said Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, but.. we now know that story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taiwan wouldn't stand a chance even if China phoned them 3 weeks prior to forewarn them they were coming. Think we're underestimating China, over estimating Taiwan. China wields by far the world's largest military, with 2.8 million soldiers, sailors and airmen—twice the American number. 2.8 million does not matter if you don't have the transportation to get them.there. that's a lot of planes and landing ships.
I'm sure they'll find a way if the want to. Many said Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, but.. we now know that story."islands more difficult don't you think? The logistics alone would be a nitemare let alone the initial force. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces." I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening." So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ?" Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing." Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? " putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think?" You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No?" China knew this would happen! It’s all game play. Order a high ranking politician done dare visit another country that’s exactly what they will do. Ping knew this and it’s just an excuse for home to again play the big man shadowing just how manly and powerful he is 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You might need to take another look at China. That's 40 years out of date. Not many can build an archipelago of islands in the middle of an ocean. Taiwanese are outnumbered by 10000 to 1.. you think tiawan not going to see a invasion coming and act accordingly? Explain how china getting there without suffering massive losses. Both air and sea. " I'll remind you again, they fought the USA to a standstill in Korea. The Chinese are able to suffer massive losses. Mao even told Truman to go ahead and use nukes - "I have nothing but people". Things have changed, since then, not least China's military capabilities. The cost to the Chinese would be massive - and, as you say, they're not currently able to mount that sort of invasion; but, eventually, they will be. One thing is certain; should the Chinese successfully invade Taiwan, there's no way the USA would be prepared to sustain the kind of casualties that would be inflicted on them, in order to liberate Taiwan. All that said, I don't think they'll do it. The downside is way too high. Any real damage to TSMC will be catastrophic for the world economy - and will, for many years, hand a huge economic advantage to the USA, via Intel, etc. The Chinese aren't going to do that, are they? Also, the Chinese play the long game, they always have - even if Xi seems to be in a hurry - and, unlike the USA, they are far less likely to resort to military conflict and massive, unnecessary, loss of life. It's not really been their habit, since WWII. The same cannot be said of the USA. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe....maybe not....wars have been happening since the beginning of time. Since the idea of countries came into existence. I hope we've seen the end of conflict, and I genuinely believe China want war as much as any other country. That is open to interpretation. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ?" Not at all, but was it worth it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No? China knew this would happen! It’s all game play. Order a high ranking politician done dare visit another country that’s exactly what they will do. Ping knew this and it’s just an excuse for home to again play the big man shadowing just how manly and powerful he is
"Why do you keep calling him Ping? It's really not on. You can challenge his politics without resorting to such things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No? China knew this would happen! It’s all game play. Order a high ranking politician done dare visit another country that’s exactly what they will do. Ping knew this and it’s just an excuse for home to again play the big man shadowing just how manly and powerful he is
Why do you keep calling him Ping? It's really not on. You can challenge his politics without resorting to such things."why are you offended by man made words? Tiny minded at the very least..,along with most words in the dictionary they are man made no wonder the world is like it is ,get a life... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No? China knew this would happen! It’s all game play. Order a high ranking politician done dare visit another country that’s exactly what they will do. Ping knew this and it’s just an excuse for home to again play the big man shadowing just how manly and powerful he is
Why do you keep calling him Ping? It's really not on. You can challenge his politics without resorting to such things. why are you offended by man made words? Tiny minded at the very least..,along with most words in the dictionary they are man made no wonder the world is like it is ,get a life..."I find putting a Mr or Mrs just before the trigger to ready the conditioned.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening. So you saying a a political dignitary can't visit other countries without the threats ? Taiwan is a different case though don't you think. There is the long standing "one China policy" which all parties have been acting in accordance with which has given a status-quo for some time. Pelosi's visit definitely was provocative, entirely risky and without any material gain, and could be seen as disrupting the status-quo. It was a deliberately confrontational act. Not to defend China's response in the slightest, but America knew what they were doing. Lol it's for putin to travel to other hostile nations to the west. A US congresswoman does it and everyone loses their minds are you serious? Dignitaries should have freedom of travel should they not ? putin and his dignitaries travel all the time so does Xi's has any western nation complained with threats to " Shoot them down "? A posture of strength is better don't you think? You never answer the questions put. I asked if you agreed that Taiwan is a different case because of the One China policy. You answered about Putin? You must see how this was a deliberately provocative move by the US. An equivalent would be if, for example, Florida broke away from the US as a socialist state, against the will of the rest of America, declared themselves as the rightful rulers of the USA. There was a military stand off between Florida and the rest of the USA. Then a major world leader chooses to make a state visit to Florida to meet their leaders. It would be a provocative stance don't you think? No? China knew this would happen! It’s all game play. Order a high ranking politician done dare visit another country that’s exactly what they will do. Ping knew this and it’s just an excuse for home to again play the big man shadowing just how manly and powerful he is
Why do you keep calling him Ping? It's really not on. You can challenge his politics without resorting to such things. why are you offended by man made words? Tiny minded at the very least..,along with most words in the dictionary they are man made no wonder the world is like it is ,get a life..."Ah. Just a racist then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is money so important to a Communist state?" China is not a communist state. It is an authoritarian state run by Xi Jinping. So yes, money is very important to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China could take Taiwan at anytime of its chosing, but for what? The costs and global reaction would harm them negatively. There is no advantage for doing so. The harm to their economy would be massive, which would upset its citizens. Its economy is so large a small impact percentage wise caused by sanctions, and global rejection of products by the buying public voting with their feet would be a large sum. " no it can't. How they going to cross the straights again? It's all bluster. They do not have the capabilities to mount a sea or airborne assault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China could take Taiwan at anytime of its chosing, but for what? The costs and global reaction would harm them negatively. There is no advantage for doing so. The harm to their economy would be massive, which would upset its citizens. Its economy is so large a small impact percentage wise caused by sanctions, and global rejection of products by the buying public voting with their feet would be a large sum. no it can't. How they going to cross the straights again? It's all bluster. They do not have the capabilities to mount a sea or airborne assault." How exactly do you know what the Chinese Military capabilities are? Do you work for them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China could take Taiwan at anytime of its chosing, but for what? The costs and global reaction would harm them negatively. There is no advantage for doing so. The harm to their economy would be massive, which would upset its citizens. Its economy is so large a small impact percentage wise caused by sanctions, and global rejection of products by the buying public voting with their feet would be a large sum. no it can't. How they going to cross the straights again? It's all bluster. They do not have the capabilities to mount a sea or airborne assault. How exactly do you know what the Chinese Military capabilities are? Do you work for them?" literally you can look up the classes of troop transport capability. You can't hide ships from satellites.Unless china all of a sudden has advanced cloaking technology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China could take Taiwan at anytime of its chosing, but for what? The costs and global reaction would harm them negatively. There is no advantage for doing so. The harm to their economy would be massive, which would upset its citizens. Its economy is so large a small impact percentage wise caused by sanctions, and global rejection of products by the buying public voting with their feet would be a large sum. no it can't. How they going to cross the straights again? It's all bluster. They do not have the capabilities to mount a sea or airborne assault. How exactly do you know what the Chinese Military capabilities are? Do you work for them? literally you can look up the classes of troop transport capability. You can't hide ships from satellites.Unless china all of a sudden has advanced cloaking technology." So your basing the entire idea on what they are capable of based on satellite imagery that's been made publically available? That is to say, Absolutely no idea of the actual answer. Got it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China could take Taiwan at anytime of its chosing, but for what? The costs and global reaction would harm them negatively. There is no advantage for doing so. The harm to their economy would be massive, which would upset its citizens. Its economy is so large a small impact percentage wise caused by sanctions, and global rejection of products by the buying public voting with their feet would be a large sum. no it can't. How they going to cross the straights again? It's all bluster. They do not have the capabilities to mount a sea or airborne assault. How exactly do you know what the Chinese Military capabilities are? Do you work for them? literally you can look up the classes of troop transport capability. You can't hide ships from satellites.Unless china all of a sudden has advanced cloaking technology. So your basing the entire idea on what they are capable of based on satellite imagery that's been made publically available? That is to say, Absolutely no idea of the actual answer. Got it." no and combat ratio current with their providing transport abilities .China does not have it. They have to supply by sea for any invasion force. Logistically impossible for them.it take 1 combat personal per 4 logistics personal to sustain a modern military combat effectiveness. They do not have the transportation to get there and supply logistics .Without suffering the losses to maintain that tempo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners." China does not have the logistical support to keep the tempo on Taiwan. It's impossible in their current situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners." And unbelievably we had the element of surprise. Can’t do that today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"China will have extreme difficulties trying to cross the straights. Taiwan is safe." I'd imagine the straights and the gay's would oppose it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners. And unbelievably we had the element of surprise. Can’t do that today. " nope people fail to realize that. The Russian invasion was predicted weeks before it started. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners. And unbelievably we had the element of surprise. Can’t do that today. nope people fail to realize that. The Russian invasion was predicted weeks before it started. " I would say years before not weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners. And unbelievably we had the element of surprise. Can’t do that today. nope people fail to realize that. The Russian invasion was predicted weeks before it started. I would say years before not weeks." The tooth to tail ratio for the Chinese to take Taiwan is mom existent. Unless the just nuke it and call it a day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think that they are going to invade Taiwan With what happening in the Ukraine are we heading to world war3" China is currently trying to deal with huge internal issues with a financial system very close to collapsing due to people being outraged in many of the real estate companies starting to fall under and not building homes already paid for. Many folk are refusing to pay their mortgages now, making the financial system very unstable which in turn could very well bring down the party. It's also been having serious issues relating to agriculture as they've lost huge swaths of their crops this year due to unseasonable weather. While we can hope that they're not in a place to go to war with a population increasingly growing against them and having them distracted, we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy"." From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly." Show me Chinas tooth to tail in regards to Taiwan. Literally another US delegation visited there. China is no threat. It's bluster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will attempt something at some point but not at the moment. " How? Literally you can see the buildups you can't hide it with today's technology. There Is no element of surprise .Taiwan a island the only way you resupply is by naval resources or air. Neither is sustainable anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WE agree on the Chinese not having the capabilities to move enough land forces across the body of water. On D-Day over 175,000 ground forces took part. The fleet elements invovled, which would include combat and transport vessels totalled over 6833. (Got that from the Royal Navy website). Now keep in mind that the Chinese military is far larger. Nobody is going to be able to amass a landing force like that, and its fleet elements without everybody noticing. You wouldn't even need satellites as the Taiwanese could report on it visually. Regardless, NATO already has enough firepower and attack submarines in the area to destroy any soft landing ships that would carry troops. China's counter to that would be a fleet of diesel powered subs which are easier to detect compared to nuclear ones. Stop listening to the media scare mongering and look at the cards actually on the table. China has an ageing population too and it doesn't want to throw it's young into a protracted conflict with one of its biggest trading partners. And unbelievably we had the element of surprise. Can’t do that today. nope people fail to realize that. The Russian invasion was predicted weeks before it started. I would say years before not weeks. The tooth to tail ratio for the Chinese to take Taiwan is mom existent. Unless the just nuke it and call it a day." What does “tooth to tail ratio” mean? Never heard that before! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly. Show me Chinas tooth to tail in regards to Taiwan. Literally another US delegation visited there. China is no threat. It's bluster." I'm not a supporter of China at all in it's current form, but like I'm not a supporter of the USA or NATO. Sure didn't Kissinger say in the 90s that NATO expansion into the old Soviet countries would just increase hostilities with Russia again? I genuinely think we humans got trapped in large scale organised civilisation too quickly while still beset with tribalistic thinking, as we adapted for small groups, not this world that's gone huge so quickly, and we're being mislead by organisations that we believe represent us but they have their own motives and goals that we'd despise if we knew. The world's arm's industry (especially the USA's one) is absolutely huge and can't exist if we didn't have a big boogeyman to defend ourselves from. The media cries out if Iran tests a missile, ignoring it's serious threat Saudi Arabia right next to it testing missiles all along the border, or if China reclaims some island in the sea, the media is up in arms, not talking about all the US military bases that have China absolutely surrounded. Too many folk just have such a simplistic view on things when what we need to do is to be able to put ourselves in their shoes and be able to see the the world from their perspective. We're a species that's just become so trapped in this world of it's own creation that it can't see the real world. Unfortunately that likely means an increase in conflicts in the decades ahead as the climate destabilises more and these large self serving institutions that we call governments start warring for resources and supply chains. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly. Show me Chinas tooth to tail in regards to Taiwan. Literally another US delegation visited there. China is no threat. It's bluster. I'm not a supporter of China at all in it's current form, but like I'm not a supporter of the USA or NATO. Sure didn't Kissinger say in the 90s that NATO expansion into the old Soviet countries would just increase hostilities with Russia again? I genuinely think we humans got trapped in large scale organised civilisation too quickly while still beset with tribalistic thinking, as we adapted for small groups, not this world that's gone huge so quickly, and we're being mislead by organisations that we believe represent us but they have their own motives and goals that we'd despise if we knew. The world's arm's industry (especially the USA's one) is absolutely huge and can't exist if we didn't have a big boogeyman to defend ourselves from. The media cries out if Iran tests a missile, ignoring it's serious threat Saudi Arabia right next to it testing missiles all along the border, or if China reclaims some island in the sea, the media is up in arms, not talking about all the US military bases that have China absolutely surrounded. Too many folk just have such a simplistic view on things when what we need to do is to be able to put ourselves in their shoes and be able to see the the world from their perspective. We're a species that's just become so trapped in this world of it's own creation that it can't see the real world. Unfortunately that likely means an increase in conflicts in the decades ahead as the climate destabilises more and these large self serving institutions that we call governments start warring for resources and supply chains." Kissinger backed multiple genocides,I’ll leave it for you to decide how I regard him. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both clearly aggressive imperialist nations that have caused a horrifying situation in Yemen.However how would you react if the alliance situation was the other way round Iran being US backed and Saudi Russian? China didn’t “reclaim some Islands in the sea” it aggressively expanded into other nations maritime waters. In what sense do USA military bases have China surrounded ?,USA has defensive pacts with some countries near China that they have made threats against. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly. Show me Chinas tooth to tail in regards to Taiwan. Literally another US delegation visited there. China is no threat. It's bluster. I'm not a supporter of China at all in it's current form, but like I'm not a supporter of the USA or NATO. Sure didn't Kissinger say in the 90s that NATO expansion into the old Soviet countries would just increase hostilities with Russia again? I genuinely think we humans got trapped in large scale organised civilisation too quickly while still beset with tribalistic thinking, as we adapted for small groups, not this world that's gone huge so quickly, and we're being mislead by organisations that we believe represent us but they have their own motives and goals that we'd despise if we knew. The world's arm's industry (especially the USA's one) is absolutely huge and can't exist if we didn't have a big boogeyman to defend ourselves from. The media cries out if Iran tests a missile, ignoring it's serious threat Saudi Arabia right next to it testing missiles all along the border, or if China reclaims some island in the sea, the media is up in arms, not talking about all the US military bases that have China absolutely surrounded. Too many folk just have such a simplistic view on things when what we need to do is to be able to put ourselves in their shoes and be able to see the the world from their perspective. We're a species that's just become so trapped in this world of it's own creation that it can't see the real world. Unfortunately that likely means an increase in conflicts in the decades ahead as the climate destabilises more and these large self serving institutions that we call governments start warring for resources and supply chains. Kissinger backed multiple genocides,I’ll leave it for you to decide how I regard him. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both clearly aggressive imperialist nations that have caused a horrifying situation in Yemen.However how would you react if the alliance situation was the other way round Iran being US backed and Saudi Russian? China didn’t “reclaim some Islands in the sea” it aggressively expanded into other nations maritime waters. In what sense do USA military bases have China surrounded ?,USA has defensive pacts with some countries near China that they have made threats against." Why when other nations get in a skirmish it's the USA fault? When we literally tried going back to a isolated policy and everyone lost their minds in other countries.I all for you handing your own squabbling. Yet here we are... I support any individual that lays down their life for a greater good . But it gets tiresome that we get your blame. If iran or the Taliban knocked on your door you going to accept those consequences? No women rights ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we can't ignore that a war to "reclaim" Taiwan may end up being something they do to get the people on board. Sure the west has done that plenty, but substitute "reclaim" with "spread democracy". From the "Dog Whistle Playbook" I believe you are quite correct in that ponderance. When all is crumbling all around, it's pitifully easy to blow the dog whistle over somewhere else and create a distraction to rally your people against a common enemy. Taiwan would serve that purpose in a nutshell, sadly. Show me Chinas tooth to tail in regards to Taiwan. Literally another US delegation visited there. China is no threat. It's bluster. I'm not a supporter of China at all in it's current form, but like I'm not a supporter of the USA or NATO. Sure didn't Kissinger say in the 90s that NATO expansion into the old Soviet countries would just increase hostilities with Russia again? I genuinely think we humans got trapped in large scale organised civilisation too quickly while still beset with tribalistic thinking, as we adapted for small groups, not this world that's gone huge so quickly, and we're being mislead by organisations that we believe represent us but they have their own motives and goals that we'd despise if we knew. The world's arm's industry (especially the USA's one) is absolutely huge and can't exist if we didn't have a big boogeyman to defend ourselves from. The media cries out if Iran tests a missile, ignoring it's serious threat Saudi Arabia right next to it testing missiles all along the border, or if China reclaims some island in the sea, the media is up in arms, not talking about all the US military bases that have China absolutely surrounded. Too many folk just have such a simplistic view on things when what we need to do is to be able to put ourselves in their shoes and be able to see the the world from their perspective. We're a species that's just become so trapped in this world of it's own creation that it can't see the real world. Unfortunately that likely means an increase in conflicts in the decades ahead as the climate destabilises more and these large self serving institutions that we call governments start warring for resources and supply chains. Kissinger backed multiple genocides,I’ll leave it for you to decide how I regard him. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both clearly aggressive imperialist nations that have caused a horrifying situation in Yemen.However how would you react if the alliance situation was the other way round Iran being US backed and Saudi Russian? China didn’t “reclaim some Islands in the sea” it aggressively expanded into other nations maritime waters. In what sense do USA military bases have China surrounded ?,USA has defensive pacts with some countries near China that they have made threats against. Why when other nations get in a skirmish it's the USA fault? When we literally tried going back to a isolated policy and everyone lost their minds in other countries.I all for you handing your own squabbling. Yet here we are... I support any individual that lays down their life for a greater good . But it gets tiresome that we get your blame. If iran or the Taliban knocked on your door you going to accept those consequences? No women rights ? " it's so nice to claim being righteous when you have no clue of the meaning except what the media tells you... Sorry Trump was right on his policies. The majority of you proving his analogy. Correct? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Orange man's policy was bad.. You all cry about US intervention. The hypocrisy is hilarious." Who on earth is Orange man and what was his policy?? Is he the hypocrite,who is he?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Orange man's policy was bad.. You all cry about US intervention. The hypocrisy is hilarious. Who on earth is Orange man and what was his policy?? Is he the hypocrite,who is he??" I’m guessing it’s Trump? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All you guys strategic military knowledge is wasted on fab. Hope you get a call up from our defense forces. I'm too busy preparing Tracie Island. One thing I will add, if Pelosy had stayed home, none of this shit would be happening." Who's pelosy?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
