Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
1) The US already has a military it uses to subvert and attack any other nation, anywhere in the world, it doesn't like.
|
The USA does not go around threatening and attacking nations of the world for no reason. Many entities around the world (Not just Bush) considered Saddam a threat, and openly discussed removing him from power. Iran at some point may require military operations against it. The USA uses deterrence against China, but does not overtly attack or try to subvert it as a whole. And not the way China does to Taiwan civilians. You are grossly misrepresenting U.S. actions and responses.
Quote:
2) Boo-hoo. In the greater system of things, unless those 700 SRBMs are armed with NBC warheads, 700 SRBMs is nothing. America's military can put together a comparable battery of warheads versus almost any target in the world in a very short time. As one of the countless tactics they could use, since a B-52 can carry about 20 cruise missiles, a mere 35 of them (3 squadrons worth) could carry the same 700 500kg warhead attack capability. Counting planning time, I still don't see them needing more than a day or so to do so. Wow ... offensive!
3) The Chinese hardly makes it a secret they want Taiwan back. Hell, if those 700 missiles force the Taiwanese to capitulate without a shot being fired, that would be the highest victory, no?
|
All these U.S. systems are for deterrence. Give me one example where they are used as a tool for holding nations hostage....just for the heck of it. When it comes to conventional capabilities, we have used that to remove Saddam from power. True. Saddam was a dictator that tortured his own people, ran a terrorist training camp out of Salman Pak, paid terrorist families money to kill civilians in Israel, trashed multiple UN resolutions he agreed to to stop GW1, and was believed to be building a WMD capability (Believed by British intel, Russia, Germany, American Democrats, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, al Gore, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, etc.). But of course, it's just easier (and apparently alot of fun) to focus the blame on Bush rather than see it for what it is.
The Taiwanese aren't going to capitulate because 700 SRBM's are pointed at it. I really wonder if you "I hate Bush"..."I hate America" types would just stand there and passively watch China launch these missiles at Taiwanese civilians. I'm convinced, the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" types would be silent.
Quote:
|
All you can do is show that there is a motive, and that's generally considered adequate and in fact has to be due to limitations in our ability to acquire such knowledge.
|
OK. But then Bill Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Hans Blix, German intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, all had the same motive as Bush. If Bush is a liar, they are too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Also to me a lie is a lie
|
Hey, Brad. Me too. But you haven't proven that Bush lied about anything. Nor has the New York Times. Nor has the New Republic. Nor has the peanut gallery at the DNC. Just saying "Bush lied" doesn't suffice. Leveling a charege like that is serious, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser.
Mr. Subman - If you look at China's military, you definitely get a feel for their objectives. They want to subvert Taiwan, and find a way to keep the USA from coming to the rescue. If China was a peaceful country, they would just leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is free, independant, a threat to nobody, has a world class economy, and is happy to govern itself. The so called human rights lovers of course are silent to China's coming aggression.