Multani's Political Corner 5: Bush's International Policy

[Ura]

Multani: Anti-missle defense systems onboard ships are that effective, thats why you don't use missles against ships, you use torpedos and heavy gun shells as they are much much more difficult to stop. Missles are for attacking ground targets and air units which can't stop them without great difficulty, planes can try to dodge and have limited supplies of counter measures such as chaff and flares, but beyond that they're toast. As for ground units, well.....tanks just aren't that nimble. And bunkers are fairly hard to carry around too.
Thats why missles are still used, for long range ground assault.
Sadly missles can't be guided on their final approach to get around anti-missle defenses because other then cruise missles and the large land assault missles, they don't have user interface guidance systems, they have target lock guidance, which means they are locked onto their target from the launch apparatus, whether its from a plane or a FaF system and follow it till they detonate, lose the lock, or run out of fuel.
This is one of the reasons the US really doesn't like the new cruise missle the Chinese got from the Russians, because it can penetrate their ship board defenses with a higher then 60% effectiveness and packs enough of a punch to sink in a single shot, possible two if needed on larger vessles.
The anti-missle systems onboard US ships have been tested against a major power, themselves. Thats one of the protocols for defensive system prototypes. It comes down to the basic logic of, "If we can get a shot through, then someone else probably can too, so we don't want it." Thats why I've got those wonderful pictures of cruise missle test dummies full of holes. They, (the US test gerbils) fire them at ships outfitted with the new system running and if its shot down its good, if it gets through it bounces off the hull leaving a nasty mar in the paint, maybe a slight dent. Most systems go through a year or more worth of field tests before they can even get funding from congress to produce them.
I can't agree with you on the specs being exagerated as I think they should actually be able to do better by now. *shrugs*

Though I do agree that I think its unlikely for the US to use military engagement to defend taiwan, its just Bushy doing some muscle flexing.

 

[Spiderman]

Multani:

Throughout all this, I would just like to state that Taiwan still belongs to China, and that the U.S. has admitted that the PRC is the legitimate government of China, so can somebody please remind me why the U.S. has the right to "defend" Taiwan?

Just so I'm clear, does establishing diplomatic recognition mean you recognize that government as the official one for that country? After all, we've already shown that the Taiwan government still retains all rights and recognition by the US despite Beijing being recognized as... "official"? I don't even want to say that since I don't know the document or whatever it says that we established diplomatic ties with Beijing.

Vietnam: The fact that the U.S. withdrew implies that despite all the U.S. Army's technological superiority, they still were not able to outright crush Chinese, and Vietmamese forces.

I didn't know the Chinese were involved. Please elaborate.

The fact that the US was not able to "invade" North Vietnam and instead was "acting in a support" position for the South Vietnamese forces tells why the US had to ultimately withdraw.

Korea: Not what I hear. I heard that there was more of a stalemate going on in the last 2 years of the war at the 38 and a half parallel. The fact that the U.S. didn't completely crush enemy forces despite technological superiority indicates that technology will not always generate a sufficent upper hand.

Again, you're not telling the full story. Here, why don't you tell me how many Chinese forces were involved and how many US forces (and if you want, include the two Korean forces).

The fact that the Chinese could not outright win when they made their "surprise" entrance shows that despite their superior numbers, the US not only held on (barely, admittedly) but pushed them back. I would venture to guess China poured more men into the conflict than the US just to keep that stalemate.

I agree that at a certain point, numbers will overwhelm technological superiority. However, I would guess that for China back then and right now, that number is pretty darn high.

The TRA is domestic because it was approved ONLY by the U.S. Congress. China had no say in the act. Therefore, the law is domestic, and also, not to mention, has no international standing.

No, I believe the TRA is one way the US chooses to act/deal with with other nations. They don't need other nation's approval, especially in the murky matter of Taiwan vs China at that time since NO ONE knew which gov't was right or wrong.

1st question: yes

Again, please show me where this is so in writing.

2nd question: Yep. Before U.S. recognized Beijing, it was the illigimate governemnt of China in the eyes of the U.S.

Hmm.... so technically, before 72 (or whenever) the US could have assisted Taiwan in "retaking" China as its own without fear of any international outcry? Huh...

Also, about the communique: I'll look over it again. Still you don't think it's wrong that the U.S. is selling weapons to another province of another country? I ask you this: How would the U.S. react to China selling weapons to Hawaii assuming Hawaii wants independence from the U.S.?

Again, until the above questions are resolved, I am not convinced that "just because" China claims Taiwan is part of China, that makes it so. Doesn't Taiwan claim China as part of itself?

That's a good question... honestly, probably the US would be rather peeved.

As for the fact that the U.S. said nothing about arm sales to Taiwan in the first communique, my mistake. It was actually stated in the second communique with China, signed in 1982
Link: http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/Jnt-Com3.htm

Excerpt:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. In so stating, the United States acknowledges China's consistent position regarding the thorough settlement of this issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the phrase "final resolution" is ambiguous. It could mean the stop of sales, or it could mean until it is revisited in the future. I think the diplomats put it this way intentionally so no doors were closed.

As for war-games, I've learned they're not completely reliable, and are to a degree biased.

Since we don't have the supercomputers available to us to calculate down to the nth degree of precision,of course they're not going to be reliable. More importantly, they're usually FUN, if you're into that sort of thing.

Personally, I don't think the U.S. is truly willing to use military action to protect Taiwan. If you ask me, Bush is bluffing on the part about U.S. forces interveneing. Oh well, just my opinions...

I agree and said this a LONG time ago. Unless China does something truly provocative, like get caught in a bloody coup attempt, which is highly unlikely in itself anyways.

 

[Mr USA]

Why do you guys even bother having these conversations? None of you ever acknowledge valid points made by the other. No one here is going to say, "Hey, you know what? You are right. That is a good point." or "Wow, that makes sense, I can see what you mean." I see this from this thread, and another one that comes to mind. There are lots of wheels spinning and aggravated retorts, but no concurrence.

 

[Duel]

Mr USA, I absoloutely agree...

 

[Spiderman]

On the contrary, I can think of several instances on this and the other thread when one person has acknowledged the other (in fact, Duel was one of them on the other thread) You would know this if you actually read the thread.

So my question to you is: Why bother making such statements when a) such a statement isn't valid and b) you do not contribute anything to the conversation? No one's forcing you to read the thread so simply don't click on it. <shrug>

 

[Mr USA]

Thank you for those friendly words. I can feel the love in the air. I don't recall any acknowledged concessions on either thread. I just remember a lot of attacking and arguing. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe there was one (probably not by you).

Why bother making such statements? Because I've been in constructive conversations before and this ain't it. No one is forcing me to read, but I'm still free to express my thoughts. Aren't I?

 

[Ura]

Mr. USA
hmm, arguing and attacking on this thread? I don't recall any, but perhaps I'm simply reading the disscussion differently. I didn't perticularly care enough about the other tread after the first page to bother reading it all.
I do know that in this one however that Spidey, Multani, and myself have acknowledged each others valid points when they are clarified and/or proven. Both Spidey and myself agreed completely with Multani's finishing statement from his last posting. So please, do tell how we've been attacking each other here, I seem to have slept through the battle.

I'm sure you have been in constructive conversations before, but talking to yourself in the mirror doesn't count.
See, that was an attacking statement, or you could consider it a reactive attacking statement to the one you made. Regardless neither is very polite and shouldn't be used as "ammo" in a political debate such as this.
And of course you are entitled to express your thoughts, just don't expect anyone else to like it or agree with you, though from what I understand of the "other" thread you were in, your probably getting used to that. I think it was Cateran Emporer who once said on these boards somewhere,
"I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it."
or it could have been someone else, I don't remember, its far to early in the morning to think.

 

[Mr USA]

Ouch, such stinging words. My, my, do you kiss your mother with that foul mouth?

<sniff> That's ok, I can tell when I'm not wanted. I'll take my ball and play somewhere else. I wouldn't want to disrupt your intelligent (Ha!) debate here.

 

[Spiderman]

I've got lots o' love for you, MrUSA....

I guess Ura beat me, but I reiterate: there have been some agreement here and on the other thread. You just have to take the time and fully read each one.

Of course you are entitled to say what you think, but alas, so am I. And sometimes saying nothing is better than saying anything. I just find it puzzling why you (or anyone else) would post such a statement. What's the goal? To get the debate to end? When the statement is as false as shown, it's hard to take seriously. It's even harder to take from someone who hasn't participated (although I could see where an outside voice saying that AND where it's a valid statement might have some influence).

Ura: I think that was CE's saying.

 

[Mr USA]

Granted, this thread is not as bloody as another that comes to mind. But it doesn't sound constructive. I did read it and I came away with the feeling that you guys aren't trying to reach an understanding, you are just trying to prove each other wrong.

What is the reason I mentioned it? Maybe I'm trying to spread peace throughout the world. Nah. I did it to show you that it is futile (please, no Star Trek references). I believe strongly in my conservative views and stay current on world/domestic events, but found that discussing these topics with people left of center does nothing but give me ulcers. In reality, this happens to most people, they are just not cognoscente of it and do it anyway. Let me ask you something - what is your reason for having the discussion?

 

[Spiderman]

Probably overall, this thread IS futile in that it mostly talks about the theoretical: China attacking Taiwan and the US response. There's not a previous precedent to base our assumptions, so it's all guesswork (with seemingly logical conclusions based on todays military hardware and response time).

Previously (and probably originally), it was about whether the US was at fault in the spy plan collision. Again, none of us were there and know the facts firsthand, so it's all assumptions (although there are patterns of behavior that can suggest logical conclusions).

Now, it's questioning the legality of the US assisting Taiwan. To that end I am asking for more written documentation to prove or disprove Multani's point. That probably can be gathered from somewhere and is NOT futile. THAT is why this thread has gone on for so long.

But in general, it looks like this is wrapping up and Multani will start a new thread on something else.

The irony in your statement is that because you are conservative, it seems that you are not open to other sides (the middle or left) and pretty much close off the debate when it begins. That's the impression I get from you, at least.

 

[Multani]

A new PC is in the works. It'll be out perhaps by the first week in June. (Gotta find some info on this topic)
This will be a domestic issue, and it will actually not be a true political issue. It's got a semi-political air, but it's not really politics.

Until then, later!

 

[Gizmo]

I think that Senator who switched allegiance should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

 

[Ura]

Mr. USA:
I would hardly call that foul, no more than anything you have posted on here at least.
At least you are honest about refering to yourself as conservative as you fit the classic persona of a hardcore republican.
Basically picks arguments, disrupts things that work with their stuffy fluff, stuffed full or self assurance that whatever he/she thinks is more holy then the original tablets the 10 commandments were engraved upon.
Also, disscussion and debate isn't always about trying to reach a final goal or singularity of mindset, but rather sharing the differing points of view on the subject. In that way it is constructive because we learn about different views then our own or what we read in the paper.
I'm sorry that we give you ulcers, maybe you could take some kind of medication for it, or maybe poke out your eyes so you don't have to read our pointless little disscussions.
We may not achieve anything beyond broadening our understanding of each other and learning to respect each others opinion regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

Spidey:

I just find it puzzling why you (or anyone else) would post such a statement. What's the goal? To get the debate to end? When the statement is as false as shown, it's hard to take seriously. It's even harder to take from someone who hasn't participated.

Maybe to get attention?

Gizmo:
Wooo yeah!



I need a new keyboard. *pouts*

 

[Mr USA]

You are from Canada, aren't you? That explains much - flaming liberal, insecure, ambiguous, with a touch of femininity.

In THIS thread people have been trying to share their views, but nobody seems to be accepting them. Like I said before (you do read English right? or is it French?), it is a volley of everybody trying to discredit and prove the others wrong.

Anyway, talk about being stuffed with self-assurance - you read a few pages of my words and you think you know me. You don't. So please take your Molson drinking behind back across the border and ferme ta bouche.

"I need a new keyboard. *pouts*" --- my aren't you dainty.

 

[Ura]

Mr. USA, or maybe we should call you Chibi Usa since it suits you better anyhow.

Flaming Liberal, hmm can't say I'm one of those since I can't stand the liberals up here and would rather see the party disbanded then watch them ruin the country.
Insecure, I've never met an insecure Canadian, most of us tend to be bull headed actually, but I guess you wouldn't know that not being able to see out of your own rear.
Ambiguous, wow I'm surprised you even know the meaning of the word, though since its almost identicle to insecure I guess its not to hard for you, thanks for coming out Mr. Regan.
Femininty, awww, well aren't you just a sweetie. The problem with this is what exactly? Oh yes, your the type who isn't happy unless they're flipping the switch on an electric chair and trying to grind the world under they're oppressive heals. Are you related to Joseph Stalin by chance?

Uh-huh, so who said we had to agree with each other? Oh yeah, its that assimilate or neutralize everything conservative view point of yours. Do you have little implants that stick out of your head?
The majority of the dissagreement in here has been with things such as treaty and communique contents, weapon system statistics, and international law. Since these things are pretty much carved in stone as the saying goes its rather difficult to have different interpretations of them. If a treaty says for instance that the US will not sell weapons to taiwan, then thats simple law and not open to interpretation, unless your a GWB republican, then is just a piece of decorated toilet paper.
Sorry to break your bubble, but I don't speak french, in fact the majority of the country doesn't speak french, just Quebec and part of Ontario. You'd know that if your come out of your little protective shell and see the world as it really is.

Self-assurance, I didn't assume you were the way you are as you do for so many others, I derived it from the attitude of your posts. If theres more to you beyond being a judgemental prick, then by all means show me and I will appologize, though I very much doubt that'll happen.

Aww, my Molson drinking behind, gee thats a good one. You must have learned that from Strange Brew or the Mackenzie brothers. Both shining examples of what the severe conservatives think they know about their neighbors.
I will also note that most Molson products are of far higher quality then most American beer other then MGD. Though being the rigid and dedicated conservative that you are you probably know nothing about beer, or alcohol for that matter. Maybe a fine wine perhaps?

"I need a new keyboard. *pouts*" --- my aren't you dainty.

You really think so? Come here and gimmie a big hug cutie pie!
*Grabs Mr. USA in a great big hug and pats his head*
Isn't he adorable everyone? =D

 

[TomB]

This one's starting to turn ugly. Take it to each other via PM's or email, but don't continue this on the boards.

H.A.N.D.