It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 107
1
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

That all depends if and when the carriers set sail...


DW you can’t hide lets say a 70K man invasion force and equipment from spy satellites. Just a few days notice for the carriers is good enough.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW you can’t hide lets say a 70K man invasion force and equipment from spy satellites. Just a few days notice for the carriers is good enough.

You can if your china...
Oh and BTW, your carriers might reach it, but what about thier escorts?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Will the US even help at all? Will Taiwan even declare independence? Firstly, there is going to be a new president in Taiwan VERY soon, and he is not going to be Chen Shui Bian. Chances are, as long as the new president is in power, Taiwan will not be going for independence. Very few people turned up for a rally against a new Chinese law which warrants the use of force if Taiwan went independent, which shows how many people really want independence in Taiwan. The US is not going to risk CVBGs and MAD with China just for Taiwan. Taiwan is this little country with which the US has relations not even as good as their relations with South Korea or Japan.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Will the US even help at all? Will Taiwan even declare independence? Firstly, there is going to be a new president in Taiwan VERY soon, and he is not going to be Chen Shui Bian. Chances are, as long as the new president is in power, Taiwan will not be going for independence. Very few people turned up for a rally against a new Chinese law which warrants the use of force if Taiwan went independent, which shows how many people really want independence in Taiwan. The US is not going to risk CVBGs and MAD with China just for Taiwan. Taiwan is this little country with which the US has relations not even as good as their relations with South Korea or Japan.

Actually they would risk it, if taiwan was thier friend they would have a strategic base JUST off the coast of china....VERY influencial..



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

W4rl0rD wrote:
Taiwan is this little country with which the US has relations not even as good as their relations with South Korea or Japan.



It's a basket deal. The US is ringing China w/ our "little buddies".

CHINA IS A FOOL!

They will awaken someday their markets in shambles, their bought friends running for the hills, internal uprisings, external cold shoulder, and US saying "gotcha"



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
The thing is will china be willing to risk assured destruction..( Notice I'm not using MAD..) for taiwan??



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Before you could land on Taiwan, you would have to deal with the Western airforces (if you want to come via the air way) or the Western airforces and navies (if you want to come via the sea way).




which airforce except the US can bring their airforce to near chians border?

dont talk BS



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
which airforce except the US can bring their airforce to near chians border?

dont talk BS


maintain Decorum please.

The UK, The Italians, the French all have carriers they could bring. Australia can reposition thier planes (perhaps using Japan as a foreward base) as well as the Japanese AF and Navy.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I bet bet my livelihood.. however measly it may be..-__-.. that France will NEVER intervene in any Taiwanese crisis..
Neither will Russia and only if the Indian govt. is "bought" will they risk India in this war..
India cannot afford to take part in any anti-taiwanese war campaign for it WILL be nuked before any other allied force..It will be the best option for China if they intend to flex the nuclear muscle..
Also India (i don't this for sure) may be sympathetic to the chinese reunification cause..

Got this off another forum.
www.atimes.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
No I realize that France winn not participate nor will alot of Europe, but the reposnce was to the comment that only the US could get its planes out that far.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

The UK, The Italians, the French all have carriers they could bring. Australia can reposition thier planes (perhaps using Japan as a foreward base) as well as the Japanese AF and Navy.



i mean in sinificant numbers.

my bad



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


which airforce except the US can bring their airforce to near chians border?

dont talk BS

NATO..
UN...
UK...
Europe...
Shall I continue..



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
NATO??

UN??

where are these fighters going to be stationed.

please continue



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
NATO??

North Atlantic Treaty Orginisation..
www.nato.int...#


UN??

United nations...
www.un.org...


where are these fighters going to be stationed.

please continue

Isreal, japan, carrier groups, India, russia,south korea, burma, etc etc

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Been away from my computer too long; anyways, Daedulus, you want the 17 violations and reasons the U.S. went into Iraq, here they are:

www.state.gov...
Justification for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein:
1. Saddam Hussein has never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire and has continued to violate 17 UN Security Council Resolutions (obviously confirmed by the United Nations).

17 violations:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


2. Saddam Hussein is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (later confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix) and continues to thumb his nose at the World Community.
3. Saddam Hussein possesses WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report and your apparent justification for saying the war was wrong).
4. Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).
5. Saddam Hussein intends to develop additional WMD programs, making him a threat to all counties in the Middle East (again confirmed by Duelfer).
6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks about this one and recent events prove this to be true)
7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).

(FYI. In case you missed them here they are):

Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Torture
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Abuse of Children
Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites
Denial of Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslim Religious leaders and their followers


(There’s more, but to wrap it up, Powell concluded):
In Summary, the goals of the United States are simple
1) fight terrorism, to include those that support or harbor terrorists
2) uphold and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions
3) disarm a dangerous regime that possesses weapons of mass destruction; and,
4) remove a ruthless dictator (i.e., Saddam Hussein) and promote Democracy in the region.

As you can see, violating those 17 resolutions was only one reasons the U.S. went into Iraq, let alone the other 6. Don't you dare try to say that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil or to "conquer," or any of that other nonsense.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by EngineMan2145]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
With respect engine , if thats the reasons for iraq why not take iran?
Much "bigger" threat than iraq...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
At the time, I do not think Iran was considered to be as large a threat as it has been appearing as of late. Iran claims to be working on nuclear weapons and so forth now; no one knew what weapons Saddam had, or may have, stored in Iraq.

Remember, one thing the media doesn't make clear is that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does not equate to huge missile silos or huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. You could have WMDs hidden in a couple of refrigerators. They found a whole field of aircraft buried under the sand in Iraq. If the Iraqis could bury a field of aircraft, then they could surely bury WMDs easily. And unless we know exactly where to look, finding them is incredibly difficult. Iraq IS a big 'ole desrt in a lot of areas.

The general consensus is that there are no WMDs in Iraq, that Bush lied. The latter is definitely not true, but the former MAY not be true. No one knows at the moment.

One thing to remember about oil as well; ONE reason the U.S. went into Iraq (amongst all the others) is that Saddam, with the threat he was believed to be, and instability to the region, was sitting right near the world's largest oil supply. Now people start crying, "See! It really IS about the oil!" That is not true, in the sense that it is not about taking over the oil supply in that region at all.

What people seem to forget is oil is life. If you cut off the oil supply, you shut down everything. And if the oil supply goes short, it will affect everyone, from European to Asian countries, to America and Canada, and everyone else. As well as if one these country's economy goes down the tubes as a result, it really affects everyone. If the U.S. economy or Japanese or Chinese economy go down, it affects everyone.

But you cannot do anything without oil. You cut off the oil, you shut down medical services (can't make your plastics), transportation, power, heating, farming, manufacturing, etc....so to have someone like Saddam sitting in such a region was a huge threat in that sense.

Many people say, why did the U.S. not go into Saudi Arabia, if it was Saudis who were the 9/11 hijackers? There are reasons not apparent there too, like Osama bin Laden wanting to overthrow the Saudi family. He was probably trying to blackmail them by using Saudi terrorists in 9/11, to hopefully get the U.S. into Saudi Arabia. After all, if you can't do it, why not try to get the world's most powerful nation to do it, and on the side, give that nation a major blow as well?

No, the Iraqi invasion was not done perfectly, and yes, there were some stupid things done in the process, but the basic reasons are clear.

Remember, a large source of this terrorism in the Middle East is because of past U.S. foreign policy, as well. Although the U.S. cares now, back during the Cold War, the U.S. supported whoever wasn't communist a good deal. The U.S. actually helped remove some good regimes to put in oppressive ones to keep out communism.

The basic philosophy was, "Iraq and Iran, and whoever else, kill each other by the thousands all you want, we don't care, just as long as you don't turn communist." It was one of the most f**ked up foreign policies there were, especially since the U.S. had tried to free the people of Southern Vietnam not too long before. It made no sense.

Well a lot of Middle Easterners remember the U.S. for this, and are angry about it. To them, their reasoning is, "Here is the nation that calls itself 'The Land of the Free,' yet all it did was remove good regimes and put in oppressive dictatorships for its own interests and security!" These hateful terrorist leaders take that anger and turn it into a searing rage, into a roaring forest fire.

The U.S. has been trying since those days to repair its image with the foreigners for those things. The U.S. did some similar stuff in Central America too, which again was to prevent communism. It was more complicated there though, because of civil wars in Central America where neither side was really good, but the innocent people in between were suffering. The U.S. had supported dictatorship regimes there originally, but then realized it needed to stop that. That was when the U.S. sent in the Special Forces (of the Army), to help build peace there and fix the U.S.'s image for what it had done. They are still working in there to keep the peace, that is 7th Special Forces Group.

The Middle East is similar. The U.S. has to fix its image for what it has done in the past there, for that terrible foreign policy. The main way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat TERRORISM itself.

A starting method to this is to establish a friendly, democratic government in the Middle East and free the people from the old repressive regime, which is Iraq right now. This new government will not only will help establish a better base for operations in the Middle East to keep peace there, but it will also give people, and the newer generation of children growing up there, less reason to hate the United States. They will see that the U.S. isn't just a blabbermouth for peace, but is actually in there, expending troops and money and so forth, to establish it.

This in the long-term will help to abolish that anger against the U.S. that many have, which terrorist leaders use to turn into a searing rage.

It is a starting point. Bosnia wasn't nearly as bad as Iraq was/is, and they are still fixing it up there. So Iraq is a big project, as Bush said it would be. The U.S. needs to, throughout the 21st century, fight terrorism by truly being the bringer of peace it has always claimed to be. This will get rid of and prevent a lot of anger and hatred that has existed against the U.S. for a long time.

Now that isn't the purest source of hatred for the U.S., but it is what allows the terrorist leaders, who preach hatred and anger as a way of life, to recruit people into their ways.

To go through Iran would've been a more pure military job, i.e. just go through and kill the terrorists. And while occupation DOES work in certain instances to keep violence from happening, Iran probably would've been a bad idea at the time.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EngineMan2145
At the time, I do not think Iran was considered to be as large a threat as it has been appearing as of late. Iran claims to be working on nuclear weapons and so forth now; no one knew what weapons Saddam had, or may have, stored in Iraq.

Yes they did, they had Weapons inspectors in.


Remember, one thing the media doesn't make clear is that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does not equate to huge missile silos or huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. You could have WMDs hidden in a couple of refrigerators. They found a whole field of aircraft buried under the sand in Iraq. If the Iraqis could bury a field of aircraft, then they could surely bury WMDs easily. And unless we know exactly where to look, finding them is incredibly difficult. Iraq IS a big 'ole desrt in a lot of areas.

With respect he was more worried about rebuilding his military before rebuilding his WMD projects.


The general consensus is that there are no WMDs in Iraq, that Bush lied. The latter is definitely not true, but the former MAY not be true. No one knows at the moment.

Yes the latter is not true, BUT the former IS true, the number and ammount of WMD's was overplayed.

The co-alition assured us, there was WMD's that could hit us in 45 mins.
Thats a lie.
HE HAD NO MISSILE CAPABLE OF HITTING US.


One thing to remember about oil as well; ONE reason the U.S. went into Iraq (amongst all the others) is that Saddam, with the threat he was believed to be, and instability to the region, was sitting right near the world's largest oil supply. Now people start crying, "See! It really IS about the oil!" That is not true, in the sense that it is not about taking over the oil supply in that region at all.

What people seem to forget is oil is life. If you cut off the oil supply, you shut down everything. And if the oil supply goes short, it will affect everyone, from European to Asian countries, to America and Canada, and everyone else. As well as if one these country's economy goes down the tubes as a result, it really affects everyone. If the U.S. economy or Japanese or Chinese economy go down, it affects everyone.

But you cannot do anything without oil. You cut off the oil, you shut down medical services (can't make your plastics), transportation, power, heating, farming, manufacturing, etc....so to have someone like Saddam sitting in such a region was a huge threat in that sense.

And iran or the terrorists around it where not a problem?
What about the other middle eastern fields, going to "secure" them to?






The Middle East is similar. The U.S. has to fix its image for what it has done in the past there, for that terrible foreign policy. The main way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat TERRORISM itself.

But terrorism is undefeatable.


A starting method to this is to establish a friendly, democratic government in the Middle East and free the people from the old repressive regime, which is Iraq right now. This new government will not only will help establish a better base for operations in the Middle East to keep peace there, but it will also give people, and the newer generation of children growing up there, less reason to hate the United States. They will see that the U.S. isn't just a blabbermouth for peace, but is actually in there, expending troops and money and so forth, to establish it.

So wait its now about regime change?
That doesnt sound very democratic to me.



This in the long-term will help to abolish that anger against the U.S. that many have, which terrorist leaders use to turn into a searing rage.

How?
By invadeing other countries or using physcological warfare?






To go through Iran would've been a more pure military job, i.e. just go through and kill the terrorists. And while occupation DOES work in certain instances to keep violence from happening, Iran probably would've been a bad idea at the time.

Iran was a MUCh larger threat.
Any shipping going to and from iraq with oil or anything is under threat from iran.
Any ships traveling up the gulf are in threat from iran.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
lol.. Almost 75 to 80% of those "violations" involve WMDs..
Where are your WMDs now??
Those resolutions themself show the corrruption prevalent in the UN.. US sponsored corruption..
And when the UN stood up for itself.. it was deemed "useless"..
Well the UN still stands for the majoiryt of this planets' population..

And the resolutions at the end??
"give back kuwait their land??

You mean to say Iraq never withdrew from kuwait post desert storm as well??
Those violations are bogus.. and anyone with common sense can see that..
Those violations involve IAEA so much...And this is what the head of the IAEA had to say..
resistance.chiffonrouge.org...




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The UN vehemently refused to adhere to its own policies. It consistently told Saddam to stop violating the resolutions, but he did not, and the UN would not enforce this.

I do not remember anyone saying that Saddam had missile capabilities. I think that is baloney. And of course the WMDs were greatly stressed, even if they weren't the main reason for going into Iraq.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That is a big deal. Did you read my post, about how easy it is to hide them? No one can tell for sure if there are WMDs in Iraq or not.

And Daedalus, you site a French site!? How anti-American can you get there? BTW, Hans Blix himself stated that Saddam would not allow the UN weapons inspectors to do the full amount of checking that they wanted to do.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by EngineMan2145]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join