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: 116
1
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Daedalus3
yeah.. I have to agree with westpoint on this one..
Any firing of a weapon or missile is a declaration of war.. where ever it may be..


examples of this are korean war and vietnam war.

the chinese an americans never declared war in either of these wars.

the korean war. you guys should know.

and the vietnam war the chinese mainly used the SAMs and AA guns shooting down american planes.


Yeah well.. If you're trying to say that then the kargil episode was no war.. But its Known as the Kargil War.. Same with Vietnam and Korea..
A war is a war..




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
This isn't the thread for this, but...


Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Australia? Fear terrorism from Afghanistan and Iraq? What planet are you living on?


muslim extremist.



Neither deployment was because Australia feared terrorism.


not according to the newspapers. fear of saddam giving chemical weapons to terriost.


The newspapers were quoting US and British political leaders selectively quoting intelligence reports to justify their stance. Johnny had no such intelligence to quote and quoted their quotes. Australia has never feard Saddam doing anything. He was too far away and too small. Australia has, however, contributed to many UN peacekeeping missions for the simple fact that we have high ideals and could claim the high moral ground, never having partaken in an un-provoked war of conquest.




Australian deaths at the hands of terrorists have all come in Indonesia (except for two tourists killed by the IRA in the Netherlands) post the liberation of Afghanistan. And those terrorists were Indos, not Afghanis or Arabs. Do you know where Bali or Jakarta are and when the bombs went off?


they might be indonesians but they haev "links" to al-Qa'ida.


And I have "links" to the Gallifreyans because I used to watch Tom Baker four nights a week.




We went to Afghanistan because Johnny was determined to show Australia mattered (and it was the right thing to do) and we went to Iraq because Johnny was determined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with George and Tony (and he believed it was the right thing to do). We went to Gulf War 1 and Somalia because traditionally where the yanks have gone, we've followed (and it was the right thing to do).


any links or proof of the reason we went to iraq or afganistan. because your way is not what the news reports?


How many times had Australia been attacked by terrorists prior to the liberation of Afghanistan? Why would we fear attacks by terrorists when we did not have an aggressive, pro-Israel foreign policy? The biggest reason Indonesians had to attack us was INTERFET, do you know what that is?




We went to Korea because it was the right thing to do and we were determined to show the UN could work.


no, to stop the spread of communism.


No. We went there as part of the UN. Because one country was invading another. The western world was feeling bellicose and confident following WW2 and was actually trying to live up to the ideals behind the UN charter. Losing Korea to the North Koreans wouldn't have changed the world one bit. The Canadians and the Brits went to Korea, if they were so hot to stop communism, why weren't they in VN?
If Korea was purely about "stopping communism", why didn't the Communists use their veto in the security council and prevent the UN resolution, thus guaranteeing communism couldn't be "stopped"?




We went to VN because we were in bed with the Yanks (and there were Reds under it, the Libs said so!) and we'd bought into the whole commie paranoia problem, not too difficult to understand when you consider we'd only just been fighting them in Korea and Malaya.


no, to stop the spread of communism. the domino effect. they were thinking if we let vietnam fall then cambodia would fall then the rest of south-east asia would to. by that time the commies would be at out door-step.

your reason of why we went into vetianm because of the americans is absurd.


Domino Theory = commie paranoia.

Do you know anything about Australian political history?

Who said "All the way with LBJ" and what was he referring to?

Ever heard the expression "Beware the reds under the bed"? Do you know what the referendum Menzies lost was? Do you know who Gorton or McMahon were? How about Fraser or Whitlam?

Cambodia did fall. Laos, too. And they knew that Indonesia would never become communist, Suharto had just deposed Sukarno because he thought he was flirting with the communists. So the door-step was all the way away in Thailand. We had squadrons based in Malaysia to keep them out of there and had already gone and saved Malaysia anyway.



he might have the majority of the seats but he hasn't got his way in telstra yet. and the new legitimation on workers rights.

remeber recently the truckers riding into Canberra


I'll assume you meant to type legislation. Remember when the unions locked up Flinders street with trams? Remember how much effect that had on Kennet? Remember when the pilots went on strike? Remember how much effect that had on Hawke? And he was a Labour PM who had previously been general secretary of the ACTU, ie the biggest union man in the country.
Remember Hoddle Street and Queen's Street? Remember the pro-gun rallies that followed? Remember how quickly the anti-gun legislation was passed anyway? and again after Port Arthur?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3


Yeah well.. If you're trying to say that then the kargil episode was no war.. But its Known as the Kargil War.. Same with Vietnam and Korea..
A war is a war..


it is know as a war but no war was declared



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The newspapers were quoting US and British political leaders selectively quoting intelligence reports to justify their stance. Johnny had no such intelligence to quote and quoted their quotes. Australia has never feard Saddam doing anything. He was too far away and too small. Australia has, however, contributed to many UN peacekeeping missions for the simple fact that we have high ideals and could claim the high moral ground, never having partaken in an un-provoked war of conquest.


he told the the australian people(u and i) that the reason we went to iraq was because of WMD.






How many times had Australia been attacked by terrorists prior to the liberation of Afghanistan? Why would we fear attacks by terrorists when we did not have an aggressive, pro-Israel foreign policy? The biggest reason Indonesians had to attack us was INTERFET, do you know what that is?


its the fear of being attack by these terriost that australia entered the war in afganistan.

the problem is australia is a western country. thats all extremist see. they hate our way of life and want to destroy us



No. We went there as part of the UN. Because one country was invading another. The western world was feeling bellicose and confident following WW2 and was actually trying to live up to the ideals behind the UN charter. Losing Korea to the North Koreans wouldn't have changed the world one bit.


australia went to korea not for america either way is good for me



The Canadians and the Brits went to Korea, if they were so hot to stop communism, why weren't they in VN?
If Korea was purely about "stopping communism", why didn't the Communists use their veto in the security council and prevent the UN resolution, thus guaranteeing communism couldn't be "stopped"?


because canada and britian are not close to vietnam. not their backyard, while vietnam is to australia.

the communist didn't veto the korean war because the soviet union boycotted the UN because mainland china was not included and the soviets couldn't veto it because they wouldn't there



Domino Theory = commie paranoia.

Do you know anything about Australian political history?
Who said "All the way with LBJ" and what was he referring to?
Ever heard the expression "Beware the reds under the bed"? Do you know what the referendum Menzies lost was? Do you know who Gorton or McMahon were? How about Fraser or Whitlam?


yes. but refering to australias past relations to america is completely inaccurate. there have been major changes since the days of Robert Menzies




I'll assume you meant to type legislation. Remember when the unions locked up Flinders street with trams? Remember how much effect that had on Kennet? Remember when the pilots went on strike? Remember how much effect that had on Hawke? And he was a Labour PM who had previously been general secretary of the ACTU, ie the biggest union man in the country.
Remember Hoddle Street and Queen's Street? Remember the pro-gun rallies that followed? Remember how quickly the anti-gun legislation was passed anyway? and again after Port Arthur?


i dont know why i wrote legitimation.


yes all those things didn't make much change. but john howards plans of changing work place relations will affect everyone good or bad. the other ones were just isolated incidents

[edit on 17-8-2005 by chinawhite]

[edit on 17-8-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
All right, one more time...

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The newspapers were quoting US and British political leaders selectively quoting intelligence reports to justify their stance. Johnny had no such intelligence to quote and quoted their quotes. Australia has never feard Saddam doing anything. He was too far away and too small. Australia has, however, contributed to many UN peacekeeping missions for the simple fact that we have high ideals and could claim the high moral ground, never having partaken in an un-provoked war of conquest.


he told the the australian people(u and i) that the reason we went to iraq was because of WMD.


That is not newspapers, that is one politician, ie the PM.

(And while I personally supported "regime-change" I did not for a second believe that Saddam had the capabilities George was ascribing to him. However, my objection to the war is now based on how badly George has performed. He lied about the reasons and he $crewed it up so badly it is a new Vietnam.)







How many times had Australia been attacked by terrorists prior to the liberation of Afghanistan? Why would we fear attacks by terrorists when we did not have an aggressive, pro-Israel foreign policy? The biggest reason Indonesians had to attack us was INTERFET, do you know what that is?


its the fear of being attack by these terriost that australia entered the war in afganistan.

the problem is australia is a western country. thats all extremist see. they hate our way of life and want to destroy us


Now you're worshipping at the alter of George. No, they do not hate us and our freedoms and want to destroy our way of life. God (Allah) has told them how the world should look and they wish to please God (Allah) and make his vision a reality, thus proving themselves to be holy men. To acheive this aim they will punish those who stand in their way and attack God's (Allah's) chosen people, the Muslims, or provide material support to those who do, ie the "Zionists" of Israel.

The problem is not that Australia is a western country, the problem is that Australia loudly and proudly allied itself with the US. Look at Spain. Have they had any attacks since they quit Iraq? And yet they are deployed to Afghanistan as part of NATO. Look at Russia, they are waging the most brutal counter-insurgency in the world in Chechnya, but Osama is concentrating on the US, which actually has arguable (slim) majority support amongst Iraqis.



australia went to korea not for america either way is good for me


No US involvement and it's highly unlikely we would have gone there.




The Canadians and the Brits went to Korea, if they were so hot to stop communism, why weren't they in VN?
If Korea was purely about "stopping communism", why didn't the Communists use their veto in the security council and prevent the UN resolution, thus guaranteeing communism couldn't be "stopped"?


because canada and britian are not close to vietnam. not their backyard, while vietnam is to australia.


But of course Korea is soo much closer to the UK than VN is.
And yet Malaysia and Singapore, major British Commonwealth (and then recent colonial) bastions, are right next door to VN. Where did all the boat people go first? And the Brits had only recently put down the communist insurgency in Malaya and granted the Malaysian federation its independence.



the communist didn't veto the korean war because the soviet union boycotted the UN because mainland china was not included and the soviets couldn't veto it because they wouldn't there


Fine.




Domino Theory = commie paranoia.

Do you know anything about Australian political history?


yes. but refering to australias past relations to america is completely inaccurate. there have been major changes since the days of Robert Menzies


Yes, we've turned from the UK to the US.
When David Lange told the US that Nuc boats weren't welcome we sided with the Yanks, not the Kiwis.
When the US led the UN into Saudi and Kuwait, we sent two Frigates. When the US led the UN into Somalia, we sent a batallion and an SAS unit.
When the US went into VN, we sent 1ATF: 2 batallions, a field hospital, a helicopter squadron, a bomber squadron, an SAS squadron, a light horse squadron, a cavalry squadron, an artillery battery and ships with the 7th Fleet, not to mention the Experimental Military Unit consisting of RAN pilots and personnel paired with US Army pilots and personnel and helicopters.
With the US driving the UN sancitons on Iraq we supplied ships and leadership to the international maritime force policing the blockade. When it looked like Clinton was going to smack Saddam for ignoring the surrender terms and dicking the UN inspectors about, we sent SAS men to the Gulf.
Those are not our "past relations", they are our ongoing commitment to our ANZUS partners. A treaty which John Howard activated on September 11, 2001 and which is still in force.
With polls showing greater than 51% opposition to the war in Iraq, why is Johnny deploying a batallion of the Royal Australian Regiment to that conflict?

The New Zealanders went to VN out of duty to the ANZUS alliance and historical relationship. They pulled out of ANZUS in the early 80s and have remained constant critics of US policy since. They have turned away from "past relations" and forged a different philosophy, Australia has not.

Examine the case of one David Hicks.



yes all those things didn't make much change. but john howards plans of changing work place relations will affect everyone good or bad. the other ones were just isolated incidents


And Johnny told us we would never, ever have a GST, that in fact, after Hewson, the GST was dead. Say, what tax system are you paying at the moment and how many people are affected by it? Johnny is an ideologue and he will follow his ideology. Just look at the case of Patrick Stevedores. The mandatory-detention policy was indefensible for a nation that is signatory to the unilateral declaration of human rights and yet it remained for how long?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
This is my last post.




Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
That is not newspapers, that is one politician, ie the PM.

(And while I personally supported "regime-change" I did not for a second believe that Saddam had the capabilities George was ascribing to him. However, my objection to the war is now based on how badly George has performed. He lied about the reasons and he $crewed it up so badly it is a new Vietnam.)


i did not for a second think that saddam had WMDs. but in the newspaper they were screaming out WMDs. thats the reason most people in australia think we went to war in iraq. not john howards personal obsesion to be a good ally to america.




Now you're worshipping at the alter of George. No, they do not hate us and our freedoms and want to destroy our way of life. God (Allah) has told them how the world should look and they wish to please God (Allah) and make his vision a reality, thus proving themselves to be holy men. To acheive this aim they will punish those who stand in their way and attack God's (Allah's) chosen people, the Muslims, or provide material support to those who do, ie the "Zionists" of Israel.


you got me thinking. why doesn't osama concentrate on israel?



But of course Korea is soo much closer to the UK than VN is.
And yet Malaysia and Singapore, major British Commonwealth (and then recent colonial) bastions, are right next door to VN. Where did all the boat people go first? And the Brits had only recently put down the communist insurgency in Malaya and granted the Malaysian federation its independence.


but in the 1960s. did they know that the communist were just going to stop at indo-china?




And Johnny told us we would never, ever have a GST, that in fact, after Hewson, the GST was dead. Say, what tax system are you paying at the moment and how many people are affected by it? Johnny is an ideologue and he will follow his ideology. Just look at the case of Patrick Stevedores. The mandatory-detention policy was indefensible for a nation that is signatory to the unilateral declaration of human rights and yet it remained for how long?


ok you are right


but i throught we live in a demoracy where people we vote in best represents the policys we want. this country has turned into a one-man state.



how old are you?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
you need training for flights llike these. you cant just hope on a plane on go to china.

German and french pilots are top line.



how many aircraft

In iraq unsure, but we have 1 squadron of RN FA2 and atleast another 3 RAF GR7 planes.



how would they make it in 24 hours then?

They can arrive on station most likely in 24 hours, 48 hours max.



exactly. it will take about 1 month to get there. and by the time they do the war will be over

One month?
What are they flying at 20 MPH?




maritime fleet. i said that.

Yeah like I said, massive fleet.





from britian to china how long is it going to take to launch these planes?

Jetting from friendly base to friendly base, hmm mabye 24 hours, probably 48.
Mind you RAF planes are nearer china so less.




they might be american allies but they have priority's.

they will lose more going to war with china then to stay out. countries like jaan or south korea are chinas largest trading partners.

22.4% for south korea and 13.1% for japan.

lost of nearly a quarter of their exports is going to have a huge affect on korea. and 13.1% for japan is even more larger because of their already huge debt. 164.3% of their GDP

[edit on 17-8-2005 by chinawhite]

Why would china lose its partnership with japan, japan does not control the US forces stationed there.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
you never said based out of germany or france because we were talking about the german and french airforce. but i mentioned that if you could do that the british would have done that in the falklands.

No you where talking about baseing them out of germany and france, thats what you implied and thats what you where trying to say.
The british where fighiting a war against a target where there was no other land mass apart from the enemy, THAT is not the case here.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

German and french pilots are top line.


it doesn't matter how much hours they train. they still need special skills for high endurance missions




In iraq unsure, but we have 1 squadron of RN FA2 and atleast another 3 RAF GR7 planes.


and those lanes are going to make it to taiwan?




One month?
What are they flying at 20 MPH?


for a carrier strike force





Yeah like I said, massive fleet.


as large as japans + americas +UKs and still more. seems to need a pretty big fleet






Jetting from friendly base to friendly base, hmm mabye 24 hours, probably 48.
Mind you RAF planes are nearer china so less.


re-fuel times. + 24hours in the air. can you give me a timeline of these events.




Why would china lose its partnership with japan, japan does not control the US forces stationed there.


what partnership?

i know they dont control them there but they do own the land.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

No you where talking about baseing them out of germany and france, thats what you implied and thats what you where trying to say.
The british where fighiting a war against a target where there was no other land mass apart from the enemy, THAT is not the case here.


no we weren't you moight have been but the original thing you and I were talking about were the german and french airforce going to china



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by chinawhite


no they wont. you do relaise that they are still needed in iraq

They will win. They've got a military of over a million men, out of which only about 150,000 are stationed in Iraq.


On rotation.

Isn't it every 6months?

An extended War on China, with forces already stationed in Iraq and Afganistan could be hard for the Americans.

Think of it from a logical point of view for a moment.

America begins to attach China/vice versa.
Those evil Muslim folk [the Militants] begin to go all out. Road bombs, car bombs, every few hours all over Iraq and Afganistan. American then begins to have to fight a war on more than one front.
Than you have North and South Korea if the forces are moved from their to invade Iraq of China there is nothing to stop the North Koreans invading again.

And isn't China's land-force also twice the size of that?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
America will not attack china..definitely not while in Iraq..
So china's got a good window of opportunity now..



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Why would the US need hundred of thousands of ground troop to defend Taiwan? We would be using our Air Force and Navy which I may point out neither are being used that much in Iraq. The US won’t invade china and they won’t place ground troop in Taiwan so why would they need that many ground troops?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would the US need hundred of thousands of ground troop to defend Taiwan? We would be using our Air Force and Navy which I may point out neither are being used that much in Iraq. The US won’t invade china and they won’t place ground troop in Taiwan so why would they need that many ground troops?


Because surely the Chinese will land on Taiwan and have hold of it before the American's will commit to War? The Chinese won't attack the American's first. They'll storm Taiwan all at once and by the time they have all the landing craft ready it'll take less then an hour to cross the strait. Missiles can take out all the communications on Taiwan.

Too late. They'll then have no choice but to invade Taiwan especially since the Taiwan strait will be amazingly hard to Police and hold. (As soon as America commit to War the air bases will be bombed it's only logical and bang only able to launc planes from Carriers. With only two in the region and hundreds if not thousands of Chinese planes in the air. Even if the Chinese planes are no match 5/1 is odds in their favour and odds that they will be able to sink a carrier. Especially only two carrier groups against the Chinese Navy (and all of their submarines).)



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
it doesn't matter how much hours they train. they still need special skills for high endurance missions

They have those skills, are you trying to imply that they dont?


and those lanes are going to make it to taiwan?

They could and would.



for a carrier strike force

Since when did germany have a carrier strike force??
France mabye but germany?




as large as japans + americas +UKs and still more. seems to need a pretty big fleet

Yeah, but look at what its made up of..
Hardly top of the line stuff, the strategy of massive numbers can be easily defeated, Master sun explains it well in "the art of war".






re-fuel times. + 24hours in the air. can you give me a timeline of these events.

No rotateing pilots, I never said they would need to fly for 24 hours.




what partnership?

The trade deals?


i know they dont control them there but they do own the land.

No they dont, any land that the US is based own, they own.
Hence why normal authorities have no juristriction inside the land.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
no we weren't you moight have been but the original thing you and I were talking about were the german and french airforce going to china


I never once implied it, YOU where the one implying it by bringing in the falklands comparision.
PS, since when do airforces travel in carrier battle groups as you seem to think they do...



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by chinawhite
no we weren't you moight have been but the original thing you and I were talking about were the german and french airforce going to china


I never once implied it, YOU where the one implying it by bringing in the falklands comparision.
PS, since when do airforces travel in carrier battle groups as you seem to think they do...


But isn't this a major problem?

By the time they get there, get the all clear to attack and use the Air Force Base's it is too late?

Also won't the Chinese have taken this into account? They'll have hundreds of missiles pointing at Japan, South Korea, etc, waiting for them to be used by any coalition forces.

What happens once the Air Fields are blitzzed? They can't be used again and then we have to wait on Carriers. Which are not unsinkable and I am sure the Chinese will be making enough missiles to deal with those as well.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
But isn't this a major problem?

By the time they get there, get the all clear to attack and use the Air Force Base's it is too late?

No, its never too late, it takes days and sometimes weeks to get a campeign won. The taiwanese I have no doubt would make em pay for every inch.



Also won't the Chinese have taken this into account? They'll have hundreds of missiles pointing at Japan, South Korea, etc, waiting for them to be used by any coalition forces.

They do that and they declare war on the world, many in NATO, which would be unwise for china.


What happens once the Air Fields are blitzzed? They can't be used again and then we have to wait on Carriers. Which are not unsinkable and I am sure the Chinese will be making enough missiles to deal with those as well.

Actually if the airfields are blizted that just shows china as being an agressor and therefore will rally support in the CO-alition side.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Not if they are American Air Force bases.

If they are being used by the American's to attack the Chinese, then the same can be done?

You also assume a vast majority of the Taiwanese people do not want the Chinese in power? Didn't someone post statistics earlier showing it about 50/50 on this?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Not if they are American Air Force bases.

That just rallies even more to the co-alition side, attacks against a country (Doesnt matter who the base belongs to , its still inside thier terrain) and killing americans which where only defending a smaller country.


If they are being used by the American's to attack the Chinese, then the same can be done?

If they are being used to DEFEND another country it wil only strengthen thier position.


You also assume a vast majority of the Taiwanese people do not want the Chinese in power? Didn't someone post statistics earlier showing it about 50/50 on this?

Yeah its about 50/50, but when thier bombing you and killing your people it does tend to change your mind.
Wouldnt you agree?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join