SkyDekker 1,465 #76 January 21, 2005 QuoteDepends on how you would define victory conditions. I don't doubt the US would triumph in a total war from both sides, but neither side would really be a winner afterwards. Add in potential allies and make it full on world war three, well, then I don't think anyone would be left to claim they are the winner. I agree. I think that the big difference between Iraq and China is that in the fist case, the regular Iraqi forces were no match for the US. In China's case that is far from the truth. Hence, they will not just roll over and play nice. A US threat doesn't mean much to them. On top of that, the US economy would almost be crippled if it could not do business with China. There was a lot of talk about freedom and standing by those that are oppressed and all that great sounding bullshit. I say bullshit, because I doubt the US will stand by the opressed people of China and invade that country to liberate those that are being tortured. Same say it is smart to only pick the fights you know you can win. But one should not wonder why many think you are a bully when you do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #77 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuotePerhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. I am not sure the US would come out a winner in a war against China. Do you have any doubt how quickly China would take-over Taiwan if the U.S. wasn't pledged to defend them? Do you have any doubt how quickly North Korea would attack South Korea, if the U.S. wasn't pledged to defend them? Our power keeps tyrants at bay, allowing freedom and prosperity to flourish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #78 January 21, 2005 QuoteThere was a lot of talk about freedom and standing by those that are oppressed and all that great sounding bullshit. I say bullshit, because I doubt the US will stand by the opressed people of China and invade that country to liberate those that are being tortured. There are more ways to stand up for freedom than just military invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 January 21, 2005 QuoteDo you have any doubt how quickly China would take-over Taiwan if the U.S. wasn't pledged to defend them? Do you have any doubt how quickly North Korea would attack South Korea, if the U.S. wasn't pledged to defend them? Our power keeps tyrants at bay, allowing freedom and prosperity to flourish. ah yes, but your president has no told all that he will help all who are opressed. I agree that there are more ways than an invasion to do this. So, do you think the US will cut its economic and diplomatic ties with China until it creates a free and democratic society? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #80 January 21, 2005 QuoteWhat's your point? An attack with a knife is more likely to result in death. Full stop, end of story. Cite? QuoteThat is the opposite of what I said. I believe it is easier to run a from a man with a gun Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. While you are running a guy can be shooting at you. His range is lets say 50 feet. The range of a knife is about 3 feet. I can cover 3 feet faster than 50."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 January 21, 2005 QuoteWhile you are running a guy can be shooting at you. His range is lets say 50 feet. The range of a knife is about 3 feet. I can cover 3 feet faster than 50. A good knife thrower can hit from much further than 3ft, Ron. (Esp if we're allowing the gunman 50ft range) Those of you who want to play serious, get out of this thread and start your own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #82 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. But if they nuked the USA and destroyed all the stuff they had already sold then the USA would have to buy a whole load more stuff from them to replace it. It makes perfect business sense. Ah, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to first expand into S.E. Asia and then the M.E.? Stategically they could bring the world to it's knees by seizing all the oil resources in the M.E. Instead of dedicating resources towards the development of alternative energy sources, Bush and his oil buddies are spending billions to protect their investments in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 January 21, 2005 QuoteI agree that there are more ways than an invasion to do this. So, do you think the US will cut its economic and diplomatic ties with China until it creates a free and democratic society? That's not necessary either. Free trade by itself, as implemented with China by Reagan, is already making inroads against communism there. It sows the seeds of capitalism and private property rights. They're already starting to become more accepting of these. By working with them, instead of cutting ties, and given time, the movement towards personal rights and freedoms will grow. It will take time, maybe decades, but it will come. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #84 January 22, 2005 QuoteAh, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to first expand into S.E. Asia and then the M.E.? Stategically they could bring the world to it's knees by seizing all the oil resources in the M.E. Instead of dedicating resources towards the development of alternative energy sources, Bush and his oil buddies are spending billions to protect their investments in Iraq. They are communists and by definition their mission, like all communist states, is to spread communism throughout all the world. The strategic location of US allies and the presence of US personel and military hardware within those nations is all that prevents China from doing what you suggest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #85 January 22, 2005 well from reading the posts here, i would have to say the answer to your question is no.well ..... maybe we could take the other side of an argument, but it won't happen most likely. nice try though._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #86 January 22, 2005 Cheers mate . apart from one poster (thanks Ron), I'd have to agree. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 January 23, 2005 QuoteA good knife thrower can hit from much further than 3ft, Ron. (Esp if we're allowing the gunman 50ft range) How many people do you know that are good knife throwers? The real world is not some spy flick where everyone knows how to use a kife correctly....BTW thorwing a knife is not the best way to employ one."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #88 January 24, 2005 QuoteHow many people do you know that are good knife throwers? The real world is not some spy flick where everyone knows how to use a kife correctly That's the whole point. Just like there aren't many expert knife throwers, most criminals are very poor shots. You removed this conversation from reality yourself when you said lunatics may be great shots. Yeah, they might, but how often do you think that's the case? Exactly, almost never. In reality, if you've been stabbed once, you'll probably be stabbed again befor the attack is over. However, in attacks with a gun, you are most likely to not be hit, next mostly likely to only be hit once, and so on. Multiple stab wounds are more likely to be life threatening than a single GSW.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
