PDA

View Full Version : Role of Joint Chiefs Deserves Closer Scrutiny



fontman
12-12-06, 03:29 PM
Role of Joint Chiefs Deserves Closer Scrutiny <br />
By Tim Wilson <br />
Dec. 12, 2006 <br />
<br />
The Armed Forces of the United States are widely regarded as the best-equipped, most powerful military on the planet....

thedrifter
12-12-06, 04:22 PM
Outstanding Post!

Ellie

SuNmAN
12-12-06, 07:40 PM
I know it's easy to say Patton and MacArthur had it and Westmoreland didn't...but Westmoreland was in a 100x more difficult position than either Patton and MacArthur had to deal with

just two cents

I agree though, outstanding post !!!

Zulu 36
12-12-06, 07:42 PM
True, Westmoreland was is a different situation, but he still didn't have a clue.

greensideout
12-12-06, 08:32 PM
I know it's easy to say Patton and MacArthur had it and Westmoreland didn't...but Westmoreland was in a 100x more difficult position than either Patton and MacArthur had to deal with

just two cents

I agree though, outstanding post !!!


No offence meant but I am sitting here wondering how in the heck you came up with an idea like that?

10thzodiac
12-12-06, 10:46 PM
March 12, 1989
THE AGE OF BRASS

By RUSSELL F. WEIGLEY; RUSSELL F. WEIGLEY, THE DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, IS WRITING A HISTORY OF MODERN WARFARE.

LEAD: FOUR STARS By Mark Perry. Illustrated. 412 pp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. $24.95.

FOUR STARS By Mark Perry. Illustrated. 412 pp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. $24.95.

Mark Perry's ''Four Stars'' is a history of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that focuses on an issue of civil-military relations not often addressed, however much those relations are generally debated: can military leaders be expected to create forces and strategies that will meet the needs of national policy without also participating in making the policy? To Mr. Perry, the entire recent history of the Joint Chiefs, which consists of the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, hinges on a little-known and still scantily documented crisis involving a rebellion of the Chiefs in August 1967 over how the Vietnam War was being fought, a rebellion that sprang from the above question. Mr. Perry, a Washington correspondent for The Nation whose first book this is, believes that, as far as the Chiefs are concerned, everything that came before August 1967 helped lead to that crisis and almost all events since have revolved around efforts to prevent its repetition. While ''Four Stars'' often diverges from this straightforward theme, and in doing so achieves a wealth of historical detail, there is much to be said in favor of its central organizing thesis as a key to understanding the Joint Chiefs.

The early years of the Joint Chiefs, from their first meeting on Feb. 9, 1942, were a time of conspicuous interservice quarreling. Mr. Perry may overemphasize the infighting during World War II a bit, but certainly interservice rivalry dominated public perceptions of the Chiefs from the Harry S. Truman years of the so-called Revolt of the Admirals (a feud among the services over control of America's nuclear arsenal) through the Dwight D. Eisenhower years of Army discontent with the policy of massive nuclear retaliation. Mr. Perry argues, however, that the interservice battles obscured - and also weakened the Joint Chiefs' hand in - a more fundamental issue, the Chiefs' belief that they must have more influence in the formulation of foreign policy. With only marginal influence on policy making, they often felt in danger of backing policies for which no adequate military support was possible.

According to Mr. Perry's account of the 1967 crisis, the Vietnam War justified the Chiefs' fears. When the Johnson Administration escalated our involvement in Vietnam, all the Chiefs resisted the drift toward a ground war involving American troops. Gen. Harold K. Johnson, the Army Chief of Staff, was the most deeply opposed. At no time did he feel confident in the wisdom of our fighting in Vietnam, and his custom, prolonged until it became impossible, of writing personally to the parents of every soldier killed in action reflected his agonizing over it. Even the famously hawkish Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, sought an abrupt escalation of the bombing in Vietnam precisely to avoid a ground war. Adm. David L. McDonald, the Chief of Naval Operations, essentially agreed with General LeMay. Earle G. Wheeler, the Army general who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stood somewhere between General Johnson and General LeMay in believing that swift and harsh bombing of North Vietnam could actually short-circuit the war and save South Vietnam. But General Wheeler tirelessly sought a voice in policy making to avoid an unwinnable ground war, with intense bombing of the North as the best option he thought he could offer, but with realistic assessments of the determination of the North and the viability of the South always as his desired foundations of policy.

He and the other Chiefs did not believe such realism underlay the policy making of President Lyndon Johnson or, especially, that of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The Chiefs' doubts reached their gravest on Aug. 25, 1967, when Mr. McNamara testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and argued that current policy and strategy would eventually bring victory, this in defiance of the Chiefs' interpretation of recent intelligence reports and particularly of their belief that only bombing the North and interdicting its supplies could possibly win the war. Mr. Perry argues that the Chiefs regarded this testimony not only as an expression of disagreement with what they had told Mr. McNamara about immediate policy issues, but as something much more serious - a rupture of the unofficial contract between our democracy's civil and military powers, whereby the military pledges to obey the civil authorities without question but in return the civilian leaders implicitly pledge that their policies will not cause needless loss of life.

According to Mr. Perry's sources, on the afternoon after Mr. McNamara's testimony, General Wheeler proposed that the Chiefs resign en masse in protest against a policy that was immoral in its sacrifice of American lives in pursuit of unworkable strategies. By the next morning, however, General Wheeler reversed course, deciding that mass resignation would amount to mutiny and that it was better to persist in seeking change from within than to precipitate an open breakdown of civil-military relations.

Mr. Perry argues, however, that while the breakdown did not become open, it forever changed those relations. He portrays the subsequent history of the Joint Chiefs as a campaign by the military leaders - now at last minimizing their interservice quarrels - to gain leverage on policy making to spare them from having to condone actions they considered futile and even immoral.

This later history culminated in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act. The law was designed to discourage interservice battles by making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the members collectively, responsible for providing military advice to the President. And, more important, in an attempt to deal with the underlying cause of the 1967 crisis, the law made the chairman a member of the National Security Council, assuring him the right to advise civilian officials whether he was asked or not.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the chairman's advice will be heeded. Nevertheless, ''Four Stars'' makes it clear that the evolution of the Joint Chiefs has led to a little-understood reversal of traditional patterns of the civil-military relationship. The historic separation of the military from the creation of national policy is at an end. By law the military is no longer simply the servant of policy. Some sense of what the implications of this may prove to be emerges from this thoughtful analysis of the events and ideas that produced the change.

SuNmAN
12-12-06, 10:48 PM
No offence meant but I am sitting here wondering how in the heck you came up with an idea like that?


If I start this would probably be a long, drawn out argument and discussion but General William Westmoreland had to deal with a growing insurgency and an emeny who much preferred to harrass and fight like Mao ZeDong did rather than one, direct confrontation with the enemy. Also the fact that Westmoreland fought an extremely unpopular war.

Patton and MacArthur on the other hand both had the full support of the American public, fought an enemy that was willing to engage in conventional battle in direct confrontation, and had clear tactical and operational objectives - i.e. "take Iwo Jima" or "amphibious landing at Inchon" or "crush Nazi Germany forces at so and so city"

while General Westmoreland's tactical, operational and strategic objectives were murky and ambiguous: "prevent the South from being overrun by the North even though we're in a defensive situation, are not allowed to enter North Vietnam, the enemy constantly resupplies their troops through the Ho Chi Minh trail in neutral Laos and Cambodia, the government we are trying to defend is inept and corrupt, the enemy keeps booby trapping our men and there seems to be an endless supply of fresh enemy soldiers....ARRRRRRRGH WHAT DO I DO ???!!!!!"

I'd say Westmoreland had it tougher than Patton and MacArthur, agreed?

greensideout
12-12-06, 11:12 PM
"Agreed?" I will agree that you have put your finger on the problem of the war in Vietnam. Quote: "we're in a defensive situation, are not allowed to enter North Vietnam".
Who is to blame for that?

10thzodiac
12-12-06, 11:32 PM
"Agreed?" I will agree that you have put your finger on the problem of the war in Vietnam. Quote: "we're in a defensive situation, are not allowed to enter North Vietnam".
Who is to blame for that?

Not Smedley's http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif

SuNmAN
12-12-06, 11:56 PM
"Agreed?" I will agree that you have put your finger on the problem of the war in Vietnam. Quote: "we're in a defensive situation, are not allowed to enter North Vietnam".
Who is to blame for that?

Do you think we should have risked war with China and possibly even Russia by entering North Vietnam?

Do you not think that the occupation of North Vietnam would have led to an insurgency resistance that is 100x worse than what we are facing in Iraq today?

Think about it.

greensideout
12-13-06, 12:14 AM
We had already risk a war with China and Russia. Where do you think that the North was getting it's help from?

My question was, who do we blame for that?

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 12:20 AM
We had already risk a war with China and Russia. Where do you think that the North was getting it's help from?

Precedent: Korean War. China was aiding North Korea indirectly but threatened direct war if UN forces approached the Yalu River.

UN forces did and China entered the war.

Assuming that Russia would not enter the war due to Mutually Assured Nuclear Deterrence, and that Chinese conventional forces at first could be defeated by technologically superior US troops, the Chinese would likely eventually defeat us after a few years.


Why? No fault of our own that we are a bazillion miles away and constant resupply of troops and logistical equipment would be MUCH tougher for us, especially if we faced a growing insurgency occupying all of Vietnam, while China would be RIGHT ACROSS THE BORDER, and millions of Red Army soldiers, tanks, and supplies could just pour right through, while we'd have to shore up our boys slowly via the US Navy.

Then what? Nuclear war?

I respect all Vietnam veterans to the fullest. You guys fought hard and did your job well. You did not let your country down.

But it is not the fault of the US military that we chose to intervene in Vietnam, the worst political decision made in the entire century.

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 12:25 AM
Do you think we should have risked war with China and possibly even Russia by entering North Vietnam?

Do you not think that the occupation of North Vietnam would have led to an insurgency resistance that is 100x worse than what we are facing in Iraq today?

Think about it.

Sh*t, our Gunny in August of '64 while we were sitting off Saigon on the USS Magoo said, " We're going to loose this war" in front of our Battalion Commander, we did loose the war. Sure we won all the battles, but that's really irrelevant, isn't it ?

Our government is like my kids, you tell them they are making a mistake and what do they do ? They do it faster http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

United States has only 300 million people, China has 1 billion 300 million, WTF were they thinking ? http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/11.gif

greensideout
12-13-06, 12:25 AM
And it was made by LBJ.

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 12:28 AM
And it was made by LBJ.


I have no doubt we can swiftly defeat China in a war...but not the state we were in in Vietnam.

And yes, LBJ was heavily to blame for escalating the Vietnam War, especially with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but he is not SOLELY to blame.

greensideout
12-13-06, 12:31 AM
Sh*t, our Gunny in August of '64 while we were sitting off Saigon on the USS Magoo said, " We're going to loose this war" in front of our Battalion Commander, we did loose the war. Sure we won all the battles, but that's really irrelevant, isn't it ?

Our government is like my kids, you tell them they are making a mistake and what do they do ? They do it faster http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

United States has only 300 million people, China has 1 billion 300 million, WTF were they thinking ? http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/11.gif


While in the Corps I always heard that we could not make enough ammo to shoot them all as they kept reproducting and kept coming at us. :!:

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 12:34 AM
I have no doubt we can swiftly defeat China in a war...but not the state we were in in Vietnam.

And yes, LBJ was heavily to blame for escalating the Vietnam War, especially with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but he is not SOLELY to blame.

And if we could, the Russians would sit idly by http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/24.gif right ?

greensideout
12-13-06, 12:35 AM
I have no doubt we can swiftly defeat China in a war...but not the state we were in in Vietnam.

And yes, LBJ was heavily to blame for escalating the Vietnam War, especially with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but he is not SOLELY to blame.


Humm, I hate to say it but I have little doubt that China might well kick our butt.

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 12:42 AM
While in the Corps I always heard that we could not make enough ammo to shoot them all as they kept reproducting and kept coming at us. :!:

That uncle of mine that I'm always taking about use to say, "Mao is telling all those Chinamen, there is a house over there in America for you, all you have do, is get over there and take one!"

(Light's out)

SF
10th

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 12:46 AM
And if we could, the Russians would sit idly by http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/24.gif right ?


Russia would not risk a nuclear confrontation with the United States.

Yes, they would likely sit idly by.

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 12:57 AM
Humm, I hate to say it but I have little doubt that China might well kick our butt.


If we chose to occupy North Vietnam 30 years ago and Red Army troops flooded through the border, then yes, China would have run us out of Vietnam

HOWEVER, if you're talking about today

The People's Liberation Army, even with their 2.8 million strong army, would be swiftly defeated by US forces in any conventional fight (likely over Taiwan?) due to the following reasons:

1. People's Liberation Army relies on Conscription, we have a well trained, fully professional, all volunteer force. Our training is superior.

2. The US would have 3 allies in any war in the Pacific theater. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. All three possess a modernized and well trained military. China would likely have 1, or perhaps none, in North Korea, whose people are starving and whose military forces are ill equipped and do not have any Naval or air power capabilities.

3. China has no long range naval projection capabilities. Yes, they have a few advanced submarines and Sovremenny destroyers purchased from Russia, but their Navy is generally outdated and is no match for the US Navy 7th Fleet.

4. The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is outdated save a handful of advanced Russian Su-27/30MKK fighters, which are inferior to our F-15Cs and no match to our F-22A Raptors. Our carrier based F/A-18E Super Hornets would give them a run for their money as well.

5. The amphibious assault (likely on Taiwan) is the most difficult tactical maneuver in military operations. Such an assault with far inferior naval forces would likely be met with disaster.

One advantage China does have over the US is that they are 200 miles away from a war in the East Asian theater, while we would be a Pacific Ocean away.

Luckily, we have substantial forces in Okinawa (3rd MAW and 3rd MarDiv ooorah lol) and the US 5th carrier group of the 7th fleet that can act as a stopgap while reinforcements from the US mainland arrive.

greensideout
12-13-06, 01:07 AM
I may not agree, but I do commend you on doing your homework.

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 01:15 AM
I may not agree, but I do commend you on doing your homework.

That was just off the top of my head

studying like crazy right now don't have time to research everything lol

of course everything I said above is theoretical...war is too unpredictable

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 07:47 AM
If we chose to occupy North Vietnam 30 years ago and Red Army troops flooded through the border, then yes, China would have run us out of Vietnam

HOWEVER, if you're talking about today

The People's Liberation Army, even with their 2.8 million strong army, would be swiftly defeated by US forces in any conventional fight (likely over Taiwan?) due to the following reasons:

1. People's Liberation Army relies on Conscription, we have a well trained, fully professional, all volunteer force. Our training is superior.

2. The US would have 3 allies in any war in the Pacific theater. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. All three possess a modernized and well trained military. China would likely have 1, or perhaps none, in North Korea, whose people are starving and whose military forces are ill equipped and do not have any Naval or air power capabilities.

3. China has no long range naval projection capabilities. Yes, they have a few advanced submarines and Sovremenny destroyers purchased from Russia, but their Navy is generally outdated and is no match for the US Navy 7th Fleet.

4. The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is outdated save a handful of advanced Russian Su-27/30MKK fighters, which are inferior to our F-15Cs and no match to our F-22A Raptors. Our carrier based F/A-18E Super Hornets would give them a run for their money as well.

5. The amphibious assault (likely on Taiwan) is the most difficult tactical maneuver in military operations. Such an assault with far inferior naval forces would likely be met with disaster.

One advantage China does have over the US is that they are 200 miles away from a war in the East Asian theater, while we would be a Pacific Ocean away.

Luckily, we have substantial forces in Okinawa (3rd MAW and 3rd MarDiv ooorah lol) and the US 5th carrier group of the 7th fleet that can act as a stopgap while reinforcements from the US mainland arrive.

Sonny, China has 1 billion 300 million people and America has 300 million people and if you take into account what General Butler said, when asked how long he estimated it would take to train a man to fight. "Well”, he replied, "if you want to send him three thousand miles away to fight, at least six months' training will be needed. If he was defending his home, it would take about an hour."

A population of 1 billion 300 million Chinese, their men trained in an hour !

Is it your contention <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1:place>Russia</ST1:place></st1:country-region> will just stand by while <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region> whips the sh*t out <st1:country-region><ST1:place>China</ST1:place></st1:country-region> just South of their boarder ? That would be equivalent of <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region> watching <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Russia</ST1:place></st1:country-region> whip the sh*t out of <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Mexico</ST1:place></st1:country-region> or better yet <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Canada</ST1:place></st1:country-region> without <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region> doing anything.

Bush could use a strategist that thinks big, have you ever considered Secretary of Defense ? Bush may need a new Secretary of defense in a few months if this new guy doesn't pan out subduing a population of a mere 27 million people in Iraq; after all we have a population of 300 million and you are saying we can defeat a population in China of 1 billion 300 million.

Start studying like crazy, maybe drumscorpssnare can help, he can checkmate without even using a chessboard, or even jrorosco, he said he is bad and has fired his gun too. Lets prove to John Kerry we are real smart.

SF
10th<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 11:46 AM
are we talking about the prospect of fighting China in Vietnam? or fighting China in a possible defense of capitalist and democratic Taiwan?

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 08:20 PM
Russia would not risk a nuclear confrontation with the United States.

Yes, they would likely sit idly by.

Conversely are you suggesting any country in the American Continent, specifically Mexico & Canada cannot count on America if the Chinese or the Russians attack them. After all, Americans are none the less intelligent than the Russians and wouldn't risk a nuclear war also, that is if your hypothesis is sound, would they http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif

10thzodiac
12-13-06, 08:28 PM
are we talking about the prospect of fighting China in Vietnam? or fighting China in a possible defense of capitalist and democratic Taiwan?

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/06.gif

SuNmAN
12-13-06, 10:28 PM
Conversely are you suggesting any country in the American Continent, specifically Mexico & Canada cannot count on America if the Chinese or the Russians attack them. After all, Americans are none the less intelligent than the Russians and wouldn't risk a nuclear war also, that is if your hypothesis is sound, would they http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif


The United States is much closer diplomatically with Canada and even Mexico than Russia is with China.

A US war with China is plausible

A Russian War with Canada or Mexico is NOT plausible.

In the unthinkable case of Russia invading Canada or Mexico, I could see the US deploying conventional troops to evict Russia from North America.

The US would never invade China, but if we did, Russia would likely let China fight their own war. China is strong enough and the Russian economy can ill afford a war.

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 12:16 AM
The United States is much closer diplomatically with Canada and even Mexico than Russia is with China.

A US war with China is plausible

A Russian War with Canada or Mexico is NOT plausible.

In the unthinkable case of Russia invading Canada or Mexico, I could see the US deploying conventional troops to evict Russia from North America.

The US would never invade China, but if we did, Russia would likely let China fight their own war. China is strong enough and the Russian economy can ill afford a war.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend ~ Arabian Proverb

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>China-Russia war games under way

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IBYL --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=416 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>By Nick Childs
BBC World Affairs correspondent
Thursday, 18 August 2005,


<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40701000/jpg/_40701198_ruschina203ap.jpg The exercises bring together two former ideological enemies








</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- E IIMA -->
<!-- S SF -->The Russian and Chinese armed forces have begun their first joint military exercises.

Marines will storm beaches and paratroopers will descend in a mock invasion of an imaginary country.

The eight-day operation got underway with consultations between military delegations from the two countries in Vladivostok, in Russia's far east.

Analysts say China and Russia are signalling they are prepared to counter US dominance in international affairs.
<!-- E SF -->
The Russian and Chinese military exercises starting this week are clearly a significant step for both countries.

Even in purely military terms, they appear ambitious.

They also add some substance to the political rhetoric that is now emerging from these two formerly uneasy and even hostile neighbours of a new strategic partnership.

And they underscore a common view of the desirability of a multipolar world in which there is some counterweight to US power.

Still, officially, the scenario for these exercises - aid to an imaginary state suffering political violence - is not aimed against any specific country.

China's military has been modernising rapidly. And, while the Washington regularly sounds alarm bells about China's growing military strength and says it will be keeping an eye on events, it also insists it is not particularly worried.

<!-- -->





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

<!-- E IBYL -->
<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->






</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IBYL --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE id=ViewArticleTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>


</TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>


</TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>


</TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left colSpan=2>






<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416>






</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>











</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 02:51 AM
do you think Russia would risk war with the United States in defense of CHINA?

1. The United States is not capable of occupying China anyway and is therefore no threat to Russia should there be any engagement along Chinese borders
2. They can't afford it
3. They can't afford it
4. They can't afford it
5 - infinity. They can't afford to fight us they can barely feed their own people !!!

God Bless the USA baby !!

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 11:32 AM
do you think Russia would risk war with the United States in defense of CHINA?

1. The United States is not capable of occupying China anyway and is therefore no threat to Russia should there be any engagement along Chinese borders
2. They can't afford it
3. They can't afford it
4. They can't afford it
5 - infinity. They can't afford to fight us they can barely feed their own people !!!

God Bless the USA baby !!

Sonny, what got this brain storming session started was you are saying, "I have no doubt we can swiftly defeat China in a war...but not the state we were in in Vietnam."

Sonny last time I checked, you could not defeat an enemy i.e. Japan, Germany and even Iraq or Afghanistan today, unless you can occupy. Now you are saying, " The United States is not capable of occupying China" ? Please make up my mind without wrapping it all up in the flag "baby, 'God Bless America"', the politicians do that enough to us.


India-Russia military Cooperation

India 1 Billion people










<TABLE id=ViewArticleTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats


by Michel Chossudovsky







</TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>August 24, 2006






</TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left colSpan=2>Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, (CSTO) were launched on the 24th of August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, are in direct response to US military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran.
The Rubezh-2006 exercise, is scheduled to take place from August 24-29 near the Kazak port city of Aktau:
"It will be the first joint military exercise undertaken by CSTO countries, and will involve 2,500 members drawn from various armed services of member states, with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the principal participants. Uzbekistan, which has recently rejoined the CSTO, will send observers, while the two other pact members, Belarus and Armenia, will not be taking part .( IPWR News Briefing Central Asia (http://www.iwpr.net/?p=bkz&s=b&o=323247&apc_state=henh))






Press reports from the region describe these war games as a response to US military presence and ambitions in Central Asia:
"The growing militarisation is connected with mutual mistrust among countries in the region, say analysts. Iranian media have speculated that the United States is using Azerbaijan to create a military counterweight to Iran on the Caspian. It is possible that the exercise conducted by the CSTO – in which Russia is dominant – represents a response to concerns about United States involvement in developing Kazakstan’s navy. Observers say Russia is leaning more and more towards the Iranian view that countries from outside should be banned from having armed forces in the Caspian Sea."
Experts say the US is trying to step up the pressure on Iran, as well as to defend its own investments in Azerbaijan and Kazakstan. It is also trying to guarantee the security of the strategically vital Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

A military presence on the Caspian would give the United States an opportunity to at least partially offset its weakening influence in Central Asia, as seen in the closure of its airbase in Uzbekistan, the increased rent it is having to pay for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan, and the diplomatic scandal that resulted in the expulsion of two Americans from Kyrgyzstan.

According to analysts, genuine security in the region can be achieved only if the military interests of all five Caspian countries are coordinated. At an international conference in Astrakhan in July 2005, Russia proposed the formation of a Caspian naval coordination group, but to date the initiative has not had much of a response.(Ibid)






Iran War Games coincide with those organized by the CSTO

The entire region seems to be on a war footing. These CSTO war games should be seen in relation to those launched barely a week earlier by Iran (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027), in response to continued US military threats. These war games coincide with the showdown at the UN Security Council and the negotiations between permanent members regarding a Security Council resolution pertaining to Iran's nuclear program. "They are taking place within the window of time that has been predicted by analysts for the initiation of an American or an American-led attack against Iran" (see Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027)21 August 2006):

"War games and military exercises are now well underway within Iran and its territory. The Iranian Armed Forces—the Regular Armed Forces and the Revolutionary Guards Corps—began the first stage of massive nationwide war games along border areas of the province of Sistan and Baluchistan1 in the southeast of Iran bordering the Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan to the east on Saturday, August 19, 2006. These war games that are underway are to unfold and intensify over a five week period and possibly even last longer, meaning they will continue till the end of September and possibly overlap into October, 2006". (Ibid, emphasis added)

While Iran is not a member of the CSTO, it has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which China is a member.

The SCO has a close relationship to the CSTO. The structure of military alliances is crucial. In case of an attack on Iran, Russia and its CSTO allies will not remain neutral. In April, Iran was invited to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Sofar no concrete timetable for Iran's accession to the SCO has been set. This enlargement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which also includes observer status for India, Pakistan and Mongolia counters US military and strategic objectives in the broader region. Moreover, China and Russia, which are partners in the SCO also have a longstanding bilateral military cooperation agreement. In August 2005, China and Russia conducted joint militart exercises.

The conduct of the CSTO war games must be seen as a signal to Washington that an attack on Iran could lead to a much broader military conflict in which Russia and the member states of the CSTO could potentially be involved, siding with Iran and Syria.

Also of significance is the structure of bilateral military cooperation agreements. Russia and China are the main suppliers of advanced weapons systems of Iran and Syria. Russia is contemplating the installation of a Navy base in Syria on the eastern Mediterranean coastline. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839) In turn, the US and Israel have military cooperation agreements with Azerbaijan and Georgia.

China War Games

In recent developments, China and Kazakhstan have initiated war games (August 24, 2006) under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These war games are being held concurrently with those conducted under the CSTO, which are also being held in Kazakhstan.

India-Russia military Cooperation

India and Russia have signed on August 20th, a farreaching military cooperation agreement. Although not officially directed against the US, the purpose of this agreement is understood. The two countries have "agreed to focus on joint war games in services-to-services interaction, joint development of new weapons systems and training of Indian military personnel", (Press Trust of India, 21 August 2006).







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 12:08 PM
Negative sir,

the only possible scenario at present moment I can think of that will result in a US war with China is the Chinese invasion of Taiwan

In that case, only a defensive war is necessary and it will not be necessary even to set foot onto the Chinese mainland so long as we utterly destroy their navy and coastal SRBM capabilities.

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 12:10 PM
The US and India are allies anyway

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 01:12 PM
The US and India are allies anyway

That is: Depending if our enemies are common ?

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 01:24 PM
Negative sir,

the only possible scenario at present moment I can think of that will result in a US war with China is the Chinese invasion of Taiwan

In that case, only a defensive war is necessary and it will not be necessary even to set foot onto the Chinese mainland so long as we utterly destroy their navy and coastal SRBM capabilities.


Then America won't have to pay back China, YES !!!

SCARY SH*T

The US dollar is at the centre of a series of processes that are contributing to global financial imbalances. On the one hand, the growing US balance of payments gap threatens to bring about a collapse in the dollar’s value. On the other hand, action to close the balance of payments gap would almost certainly set off a global recession as the US is the chief market for the export industries of China and East Asia, many of them US-based firms.

So far intervention by the Asian central banks which have sold their own currencies in order to purchase US financial assets, including a growing amount of government debt, has prevented a precipitous decline in the dollar’s value. But they need to keep the money flowing in and with the US needing around $2 billion a day the amounts are not small. In 2003 dollar purchases by foreign central banks were $616.6 billion, compared to $351.9 billion the year before. The total reserves of the countries of so-called “emerging Asia” rose by more than $350 billion in the year to March 2004, with the central bank of China the biggest buyer of US dollar assets.

While some economists have argued that this system of “recycling” can go on virtually indefinitely, it does have objective limits. For example, the continued dollar purchases by the central bank of China are helping to fuel a financial bubble in the property market and generate financial speculation in the economy as a whole. So far the Chinese authorities have sought to contain the expansion of credit with so-called administrative measures, but the recent decision to lift interest rates indicates that these measures are not working and stronger action may be needed. The danger is that action to prick the bubble can set off a financial crisis in China, leading to a withdrawal of funds from the US in order to help prop up the banking system.

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 01:52 PM
yes it would hurt us, but it would hurt China more.

An occupation of China is near impossible

the Japanese found that out the hard way.

But in any conventional engagement against China in perhaps a defensive war on Taiwan, the vast qualitative advantage held by the US Navy and Air Force leaves China with no chance.

After all, are their 2.8 million soldiers going to swim across the Taiwan Strait after we sink all their ships?

rofl

drumcorpssnare
12-14-06, 02:00 PM
The first thing the JCS needs to do is take off the big red noses, oversize floppy shoes and bright orange wigs, and quit acting like a bunch of clowns!
Give our troops ROE they can work with. Take all that PC crap and stow it!
Tell the politicos in D.C. what has to happen to succeed in Iraq. The Pentagon should seek some sort of media censorship, for the good of the entire situation...from the top down.

As for "maybes" with China, Russia, etc. I think that eventually China will become an ecenomic super-power (40-50 yrs.) Their massive "dirt-cheap" labor force could crush America's economy, given the right circumstances.
I don't believe the US could win a conventional war against China. It would take many nuclear warheads to bring China to it's knees. Right now, that would not be PC. But, given extreme circumstances, I could see us doing that to insure our survival as a nation.
My own "historical intuition" tells me, that if there were to be a knock-down,
drag-out between China and the US...Russia would side with us.
And not that I take it as gospel, but didn't Nostrodamus predict in one of his quatrains, "...the Eagle and the Bear will join to slay the Dragon..."
Who knows?
10thz- Let's scrap the chess game and go "Rock, Paper, Scissors"! (You go first...):banana:
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 02:11 PM
The first thing the JCS needs to do is take off the big red noses, oversize floppy shoes and bright orange wigs, and quit acting like a bunch of clowns!
Give our troops ROE they can work with. Take all that PC crap and stow it!
Tell the politicos in D.C. what has to happen to succeed in Iraq. The Pentagon should seek some sort of media censorship, for the good of the entire situation...from the top down.

As for "maybes" with China, Russia, etc. I think that eventually China will become an ecenomic super-power (40-50 yrs.) Their massive "dirt-cheap" labor force could crush America's economy, given the right circumstances.
I don't believe the US could win a conventional war against China. It would take many nuclear warheads to bring China to it's knees. Right now, that would not be PC. But, given extreme circumstances, I could see us doing that to insure our survival as a nation.
My own "historical intuition" tells me, that if there were to be a knock-down,
drag-out between China and the US...Russia would side with us.
And not that I take it as gospel, but didn't Nostrodamus predict in one of his quatrains, "...the Eagle and the Bear will join to slay the Dragon..."
Who knows?
10thz- Let's scrap the chess game and go "Rock, Paper, Scissors"! (You go first...):banana:
drumcorpssnare:usmc:


lol

sorry but what makes you think China could succeed in a conventional war against the US?

I hate tyo sound biased but this is the truth -

Our ships are better, our submarines are better, our fighter planes are better, our tanks are better, our bombers are better, we have AWACs, they do not, our long range radars are better, our satellites are better, our artillery is better, we have 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, they have not a single carrier. They do not have a single stealth bomber, we have hundreds. Our troops are better trained. 80% of their air force is obsolete. We produce all of our military equipment, they have to rely mainly on purchases from Russia


HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY WIN? Please let me know.

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 03:02 PM
lol

sorry but what makes you think China could succeed in a conventional war against the US?

I hate tyo sound biased but this is the truth -

Our ships are better, our submarines are better, our fighter planes are better, our tanks are better, our bombers are better, we have AWACs, they do not, our long range radars are better, our satellites are better, our artillery is better, we have 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, they have not a single carrier. They do not have a single stealth bomber, we have hundreds. Our troops are better trained. 80% of their air force is obsolete. We produce all of our military equipment, they have to rely mainly on purchases from Russia


HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY WIN? Please let me know.

Sonny, now you're getting me into trouble , I'm suppose to be finishing the holiday cards. She'll probably not make dinner for me now.

No, China cannot beat us, but our performance against Vietnam and Iraq doesn't speaks volumes that we could ever occupy China. Turn them into a parking lot yes, then nuclear winter ?

Drumscoprssnare, rock, paper, scissors, shown me the chessboard first, haven't seen it ! Monkeying around here last night I missed a chance to play chess with my 8 year old grandson. He beat the wife four times last night. This weekend I'm going to take him on.

I haven't been able to find something to back up what my bible thumping mother use to say, "In the end the yellow race will rule." Later I'm going to 'Yahoo Answers' and ask the 'Internet World' if any ones knows if that is biblically valid. That Nostradamus dude was something else, wasn't he ?

Christmas cards now or I don't get fed tonight, sukiyaki to die for, eat your heart out http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif USPS here I come, bye!

SF
10thz

drumcorpssnare
12-14-06, 03:35 PM
In saying the US couldn't defeat China in a conventional war I mean...

China can't get their billion plus people here to America, so we obviously need to fight them there...in China. We would have to arrive in China by air, or sea. Tremendous 'initial' casualties on both sides. Once we're there, it's a fight from city to city; house to house. (See Korean Conflict) With the reinstitution of the draft, America fields an 11million strong military, opposing a Chinese army of 620 million. Although the US has the latest greatest in technology for it's military, all of the Chinese are armed...with something!
So, short of saturation bombing of the entire country of China, followed by reinforced armored columns throughout every city and town, where every living thing in sight is killed.... Well, you get my point.

Had it not been for nuclear weapons, that's what we potentially faced with the Japanese in'45. Without nukes...that's what it would take to subdue China in the future...IMO.

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 05:50 PM
Sonny, now you're getting me into trouble , I'm suppose to be finishing the holiday cards. She'll probably not make dinner for me now.

No, China cannot beat us, but our performance against Vietnam and Iraq doesn't speaks volumes that we could ever occupy China. Turn them into a parking lot yes, then nuclear winter ?

Drumscoprssnare, rock, paper, scissors, shown me the chessboard first, haven't seen it ! Monkeying around here last night I missed a chance to play chess with my 8 year old grandson. He beat the wife four times last night. This weekend I'm going to take him on.

I haven't been able to find something to back up what my bible thumping mother use to say, "In the end the yellow race will rule." Later I'm going to 'Yahoo Answers' and ask the 'Internet World' if any ones knows if that is biblically valid. That Nostradamus dude was something else, wasn't he ?

Christmas cards now or I don't get fed tonight, sukiyaki to die for, eat your heart out http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif USPS here I come, bye!

SF
10thz


yawn

I already said we can't occupy China

but we can thwart any attempts by them to occupy Taiwan for sure.

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 05:51 PM
In saying the US couldn't defeat China in a conventional war I mean...

China can't get their billion plus people here to America, so we obviously need to fight them there...in China. We would have to arrive in China by air, or sea. Tremendous 'initial' casualties on both sides. Once we're there, it's a fight from city to city; house to house. (See Korean Conflict) With the reinstitution of the draft, America fields an 11million strong military, opposing a Chinese army of 620 million. Although the US has the latest greatest in technology for it's military, all of the Chinese are armed...with something!
So, short of saturation bombing of the entire country of China, followed by reinforced armored columns throughout every city and town, where every living thing in sight is killed.... Well, you get my point.

Had it not been for nuclear weapons, that's what we potentially faced with the Japanese in'45. Without nukes...that's what it would take to subdue China in the future...IMO.

drumcorpssnare:usmc:


I already said a war with China in mainland China (invasion by US) is very unlikely

any war would be in defense of Taiwan, which we would win easily.

greensideout
12-14-06, 07:39 PM
I already said a war with China in mainland China (invasion by US) is very unlikely

any war would be in defense of Taiwan, which we would win easily.


Are you really sure about that. :confused:

Check this out---

http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=953

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 09:07 PM
Are you really sure about that. :confused:

Check this out---

http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=953

If I may, this is sorta like the senior in high school that bullied me when I was a freshie, that SOB was after me good after I blindsided him with a fury of punches in the school library before they broke it up, where it all started.

I grew up on him, he caught me when I was home on leave, I was in my Battle Jacket looking good and all, after the fight everybody at the bar was buying me drinks for kicking the living sh*t out of him.

My point is, we're not the only big kid on the block anymore.

SF
10thz

P.S. That night he caught me, he asked me, "Do you think that you are tough now, that you are in the Marines ?"

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 09:15 PM
Are you really sure about that. :confused:

Check this out---

http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=953

I'm going to have to regretfully say that I strongly disagree with the article

ok, China has submarines

a handful of them are actually GOOD submarines

well lets see

Taiwan has significant ASW warfare capabilities. Taiwan has P-3C Orion ASW Planes. Our advanced nuclear submarines outclass anything in the Chinese arsenal. Do you think we're going to put the USS Kitty Hawk smack in the middle of the Taiwan Strait and leave her vulnerable to anti ship missiles and subs? NO !! It will be parked A few hundred miles away escorted by AEGIS cruisers and destroyers equipped with ASROC weapon systems. (Anti Submarine Rockets)

Our aircraft will establish air superiority along with the Taiwanese Air Force over the area and sink any Chinese ships that attempt a blockade.

Once the PLA Navy is gone, an invasion attempt is foiled.

SuNmAN
12-14-06, 09:20 PM
If I may, this is sorta like the senior in high school that bullied me when I was a freshie, that SOB was after me good after I blindsided him with a fury of punches in the school library before they broke it up, where it all started.

I grew up on him, he caught me when I was home on leave, I was in my Battle Jacket looking good and all, after the fight everybody at the bar was buying me drinks for kicking the living sh*t out of him.

My point is, we're not the only big kid on the block anymore.

SF
10thz

P.S. That night he caught me, he asked me, "Do you think that you are tough now, that you are in the Marines ?"


lol, 10thzodiac, sometime I feel you have far too little faith in your own country

There might be one or two big kids on the block now along with us, but we are still the biggest, baddest, richest and best martial artist on the block and anyone who messes with us will get a boot in their ass.

Ok, we tried to beat up the little kid in his own home and now he's hiding in the attic shooting spit balls at us from above (Iraq)

but if one of the bigger kids (Russia? China? India?) want to brawl we would still knock them out effortlessly

Theres Russia, who is a big kid but he's so poor he can't afford to feed himself, and without energy he can ill afford to start a fight (too poor to mobilize military to start a war)

Then theres China, who is well fed but looks bigger than he really is because he has more fat than muscle (2.8 million active duty troops sounds scary, but they are ill equipped and ill trained. Only MUSCLE counts in a fight, not fat !)

India? Please they're not even on the same playing field as us.


We're still the BAMF of the block.

greensideout
12-14-06, 09:36 PM
I'm going to have to regretfully say that I strongly disagree with the article

ok, China has submarines

a handful of them are actually GOOD submarines

well lets see

Taiwan has significant ASW warfare capabilities. Taiwan has P-3C Orion ASW Planes. Our advanced nuclear submarines outclass anything in the Chinese arsenal. Do you think we're going to put the USS Kitty Hawk smack in the middle of the Taiwan Strait and leave her vulnerable to anti ship missiles and subs? NO !! It will be parked A few hundred miles away escorted by AEGIS cruisers and destroyers equipped with ASROC weapon systems. (Anti Submarine Rockets)

Our aircraft will establish air superiority along with the Taiwanese Air Force over the area and sink any Chinese ships that attempt a blockade.

Once the PLA Navy is gone, an invasion attempt is foiled.


---and maybe, (they made the threat once already) just maybe, LA, Cal will get hit with a nuke.

10thzodiac
12-14-06, 11:22 PM
lol, 10thzodiac, sometime I feel you have far too little faith in your own country

10thz See that's where your wrong Sonny, I have too little faith in my government not country.

SuNmAN There might be one or two big kids on the block now along with us, but we are still the biggest, baddest, richest and best martial artist on the block and anyone who messes with us will get a boot in their ass.

10thz Russia and the US both have 2000 ICBM's on standby each and in ten minutes capable of putting one in Ivan's back pocket and yours .

SuNmAN Ok, we tried to beat up the little kid in his own home and now he's hiding in the attic shooting spit balls at us from above (Iraq)

but if one of the bigger kids (Russia? China? India?) want to brawl we would still knock them out effortlessly

10thz Yes, just like we did in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq; you're good Sonny !

SuNmAN Theres Russia, who is a big kid but he's so poor he can't afford to feed himself, and without energy he can ill afford to start a fight (too poor to mobilize military to start a war)

10thz Again, what part of Russia and the US both have 2000 ICBM's on standby each and in ten minutes capable of putting one in Ivan's back pocket and yours that you don't understand ?

TSuNmAN then theres China, who is well fed but looks bigger than he really is because he has more fat than muscle (2.8 million active duty troops sounds scary, but they are ill equipped and ill trained. Only MUSCLE counts in a fight, not fat !)

India? Please they're not even on the same playing field as us.

10thz Yeah, between the above two nuclear powers China and India, they only have 2 Billion 300 Million people. After all we have 300 Million, whats a few dinks and dot heads compared to us ?

SuNmAN We're still the BAMF of the block.

10thz Sounds like your still in shock Sonny, how long ago did you say you got out of boot camp http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif




SF
10thz

SuNmAN
12-15-06, 12:36 PM
---and maybe, (they made the threat once already) just maybe, LA, Cal will get hit with a nuke.

are they willing to trade Beijing, ShanghaI, Chongqing, Nanjing, Hong Kong, Szechwan, Chengdu, Xiamen and Wuhan just for retribution in foiling their attempt to invade Taiwan?

I don't think so. The Chinese government is after all, headed by rational leaders.

SuNmAN
12-15-06, 12:46 PM
Ok, lets play -

Originally Posted by SuNmAN


10thz See that's where your wrong Sonny, I have too little faith in my government not country.

your government has nothing to do with our current capabilities from a military standpoint. No matter what party is in power our military capabilities will remain the same

10thz Russia and the US both have 2000 ICBM's on standby each and in ten minutes capable of putting one in Ivan's back pocket and yours

We have more ICBMs and hydrogen bomb warheads than any state in the world. It would not come to nuclear war because neither side wants to risk total annihilation


10thz Yes, just like we did in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq; you're good Sonny !

Many people count Korea as a stalemate. I count Korea as a victory because we successfully defended South Korea from the invasion. Vietnam we faced an insurgency and continued to bleed for 20 years but we never lost a confrontation on the battlefield. Same with Iraq.

I am good. I never ever said we should occupy China. If we did we would face an insurgency 100x worse than Iraq from the nationalistic Chinese population.

But we can and WILL successfully thwart any aggressive action toward Taiwan. Remember, we never lost a battle in Vietnam and Iraq.


10thz Again, what part of Russia and the US both have 2000 ICBM's on standby each and in ten minutes capable of putting one in Ivan's back pocket and yours that you don't understand ?

What part about mutually assured destruction don't you understand? Neither side will resort to thermonuclear war. I doubt China is willing to trade Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing so they can have Taiwan. Please.


10thz Yeah, between the above two nuclear powers China and India, they only have 2 Billion 300 Million people. After all we have 300 Million, whats a few dinks and dot heads compared to us ?

Population don't mean a darn thing. In case you haven't noticed, Saddam Hussein fielded the world's 4th largest conventional army in the world. We tore through that army like it was knife going through butter.

Its the insurgency that is bleeding us in Iraq now, their conventional forces were hopeless against us.

SuNmAN We're still the BAMF of the block.

10thz Sounds like your still in shock Sonny, how long ago did you say you got out of boot camp

almost 3 years ago. I may not buy into the boot camp "kill kill kill them all crap" but I do firmly believe in my country, which includes the fact that we are still the world's military, economic and cultural superpower.

10thzodiac
12-15-06, 09:54 PM
Ok, lets play -

10thz See that's where your wrong Sonny, I have too little faith in my government not country.

SuNmAN your government has nothing to do with our current capabilities from a military standpoint. No matter what party is in power our military capabilities will remain the same

10thz Ah, current capabilities ! Did you know how the Iraq war is being financed ? With the money ear marked to keep our military modern for the next thirty years. Nothing like being up to date militarily in the future. And we blamed Clinton for ****** up the military, lol !

SuNmAN We have more ICBMs and hydrogen bomb warheads than any state in the world. It would not come to nuclear war because neither side wants to risk total annihilation

10thz Russia and America has risked nuclear war before, October 1962. My commanding officer 1st Lieutenant Skordis B-1-11 told us the American attack on Cuba was canceled 1/2 hour before zero hour. He should know when he told us that, he was at ground zero, Guantanamo Bay, Naval Base, Cuba.

SuNmAN Many people count Korea as a stalemate. I count Korea as a victory because we successfully defended South Korea from the invasion. Vietnam we faced an insurgency and continued to bleed for 20 years but we never lost a confrontation on the battlefield. Same with Iraq.

I am good. I never ever said we should occupy China. If we did we would face an insurgency 100x worse than Iraq from the nationalistic Chinese population.

But we can and WILL successfully thwart any aggressive action toward Taiwan. Remember, we never lost a battle in Vietnam and Iraq.

10thz War 101, "Never loosing a battle", is irrelevant when you loose the war.

We already sold out once the Republic of China recognizing the "Peoples" Republic of China. Have you ever heard of the old axiom, "If you do it once, you'll do it again" ?

SuNmAN What part about mutually assured destruction don't you understand? Neither side will resort to thermonuclear war. I doubt China is willing to trade Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing so they can have Taiwan. Please.

10thz I've been there and I know better: Guantanamo Bay Cuba October 1962. You missed that one young man

SuNmAN Population don't mean a darn thing. In case you haven't noticed, Saddam Hussein fielded the world's 4th largest conventional army in the world. We tore through that army like it was knife going through butter.

Its the insurgency that is bleeding us in Iraq now, their conventional forces were hopeless against us.

10thz Right now, the American Army has declared it is stretched too thin. That reminds me of what my DI use to tell us when we were ****** up, "Your brownie is stretching, you are going to fall through your ass!"

Sonny, wars are won by attrition, the American Army can train only 6,000 new soldiers per year that will have one of year training.

SuNmAN We're still the BAMF of the block.

10thz Sounds like your still in shock Sonny, how long ago did you say you got out of boot camp

SuNmAN almost 3 years ago. I may not buy into the boot camp "kill kill kill them all crap" but I do firmly believe in my country, which includes the fact that we are still the world's military, economic and cultural superpower

10thz Remember, we're going to have an outdated military in 30 years by burning up the funds prosecuting this Iraqi war instead of using those funds too modernize our military.

Economics 101, If China ever decided to dumped the American debt (Treasury Bonds) they are holding on the world market, it would take a wheel borrow full of American Currency to buy a loaf of bread.

If you really love your country, as we all do, stop wrapping yourself up in the flag and start paying a little more attention to the people ****** your country up, your government.

May our next American Revolution be as peaceful as possible and as bloody.
as required !

Vote them out or go get your pitchforks !


SF
10thz