I thought we were talking about "civilians" being arrested for spying, not spyplanes...Check the Newsweek Issue...I can't recall it at this moment, but it has a moss-covered spyplane on the cover....
I don't know how recent these events are, but I don't think it's ancient history either.
<shrug> Well, I gotta say again: I doubt it. There's only so much you can monitor and without a good cause to do it I doubt they'd be expending the energy...Yes, and I bet they're monitoring those thousands as well. As for the comment for the camps for Germans and Italians, there were in fact many camps for them as well. Also, the FBI has never apologized to the Germans or the Italians for putting them in camps. I got that from my History book.
As far as I know the US had camps for POWs for Germans and Italians, but not civilians like they had for the Japanese.
History book? I would definitely take that with a grain of salt... it's been known that US schoolbooks are riddled with errors. Sad but true.
You've read enough? No offense, but talk about being brainwashed... that's like saying I've read enough about China that I could hate their guts... If you've made up your mind then there's nothing I can do to change it, but I will repeat that basing a strong emotion such as "hate" solely on reading is not very good practice, IMO. Personal experience I could understand...No, I haven't had a personal experience with the FBI, but I've read enough history to hate their guts...
Maybe so, or I could say the opposite for you. <shrug> Tell me this: what rough estimate do you think China needs in its military to succeed in such an invasion? Then tell me what it has in the area.You give the U.S. military, and the U.S. too much credit and you don't give China enough credit. Here's my question. Will the U.S. risk a full-fledge war with China over a single small island? (Knowing how Bush makes irrational decisions , I don't even know if I can answer that question.) Besides, if China loses Taiwan, China has everything to lose. Plus, it's much harder to assault something than it is to defend something....
The US went to war over Kuwait, a tiny Middle East kingdom. I don't think it's unfeasible to assume the US might go to war over Taiwan. Plus, I think that if it ever GETS to that point, so much buildup in rhetoric and opinion would have occurred that it would not be a "surprise" if it happened.
I'm not sure I understand your statement "China has everything to lose". I'd say realistically, it's pretty much "lost" it for now, in terms that it doesn't really have control over it.
Okay. I still don't see that big of a difference as implementing this is still a long ways off, giving plenty of time to other countries to steal the secrets and the US and Russia have already been working on a "mini" shield anyway under the 1972 treaty and haven't gotten anywhere yet.You're taking defensive missiles at face value and not considering their implications. If the U.S. has Nukes and a missile shield, and other countries only have nukes, than the missile shield in fact, becomes an offensive weapon. Anything that gives anything a tactical advantage is an offensive weapon. Thus the say that no weapon is 100% defensive.
Well, I'm going to differ and leave it at that. As far as I know, no one replacing the current ICBMs with bigger planet-busters, so replacing the pistol with the Uzi doesn't hold. The shield is already represented by the bullet-proof glass, so I don't know why you're trying to make that analogy.As long as their still are guns, than you're analogy is still flawed. True, it wouldn't necessarily mean getting more guns, but Mundungu (or was it Ura)'s analogy is still correct. Also, look at things this way. You give away a pistol for an Uzi. Would you not see it as an increase in firepower which can still be considered an increase in arms?
The US will still need allies because they still need to place the warning system/launch sites on foreign soil. An example is Great Britain; the US will need to upgrade its radar site(s) there and they haven't exactly given their blessing to do so yet. Everyone has objections, but Russia is also willing to participate (so far I haven't heard an official China reply, just the "standard objections" in the press, whatever that means in press language).My point is, the Russians would do nearly anything to save their economy. You need to stop looking at everthing at face value. Actually, once a missile shield is up, the U.S. won't need allies. Besides, the shield would only help the U.S. allies, and China and Russia would have objections. That IS the case.
Who exactly DOES have "true allies"?Spidey, if you think about it, the U.S. does in fact, almost have a world hegamony. Her influence spreads nearly across the globe. However, have you ever wondered why the U.S. has so few true allies? Maybe it's because the rest of the world thinks what the U.S. is doing is wrong....
Can you spell out exactly why it's a violation? I'm a bit unclear...The fact that the U.S. even considers helping Taiwan against China is in violation of International Law, not to mention, China's sovereignty. I can see why many people say the U.S. is a hypocrite. When it suits the U.S. interests, the U.S. pretends to uphold law, but as soon as it no longer suits U.S. interests, out go the laws...
I agree with your last sentence and it is too bad, but I could also point out a good many other countries do the same thing...