56-60, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Cleancut · 56-60, M
I would rather we go back into Afghanistan and fight off the Taliban. We didn't do a good enough job all those years we were there. We need to eliminate the Taliban and all civilians who support them. By the time we leave women should be walking on the streets not in burkas or hijabs but in western fashion including bikinis.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
@Cleancut Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of the realities of life in Afghanistan. The women there don't want to walk around in "Western Fashion including bikinis" they want to live in a Secular Muslim Nation with basic human rights such as education, health care and freedom to go where they want to without being supervised by a male family member. Yes the Taliban need to be eliminated but we don't need to change the entire way of life of a foreign Nation to suit our wants because they live differently than we do. Your comments are no better than the Taliban trying to make them into something they are not...
BlueVeins · 22-25
From what I can tell, you're speaking about her recent statement --
[quote]And yet, in the South China Sea, we know that Beijing continues to coerce, to intimidate, and to make claims to the vast majority of the South China Sea. These unlawful claims have been rejected by the 2016 arbitral tribunal decision, and Beijing’s actions continue to undermine the rules-based order and threaten the sovereignty of nations. The United States stands with our allies and partners in the face of these threats.[/quote]
I'm as anti-war as they come, but I'm really not a big fan of just standing by while other nations wantonly conquer territories with military force. The idea of a war with the PRC is as ghastly as they come, but honestly I think that outcome is [i]still[/i] less bad than letting them take over the South China Sea without a fight. It just sets an awful precedent, and once they've got that territory, there's no way to get it back.
[quote]And yet, in the South China Sea, we know that Beijing continues to coerce, to intimidate, and to make claims to the vast majority of the South China Sea. These unlawful claims have been rejected by the 2016 arbitral tribunal decision, and Beijing’s actions continue to undermine the rules-based order and threaten the sovereignty of nations. The United States stands with our allies and partners in the face of these threats.[/quote]
I'm as anti-war as they come, but I'm really not a big fan of just standing by while other nations wantonly conquer territories with military force. The idea of a war with the PRC is as ghastly as they come, but honestly I think that outcome is [i]still[/i] less bad than letting them take over the South China Sea without a fight. It just sets an awful precedent, and once they've got that territory, there's no way to get it back.
View 11 more replies »
BlueVeins · 22-25
@sunsporter1649 When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@QuixoticSoul We DO recognize Taiwan despite not having formal diplomatic ties with the Island. There is what you might call a quasi embassy set up under TERCO.
Will we defend the Island? As a vet who served there, I hope it never comes down to that question.
Will we defend the Island? As a vet who served there, I hope it never comes down to that question.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@sunsporter1649 Poor sporty, still buttmad about something that happened in 1979.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Aside from your usual complaining, what are you going to do to prevent it?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@sunsporter1649 The usual - sell them advanced weaponry, and lots of it.
Graylight · 51-55, F
No. What she did say was 'the U.S. wants to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific — a region that broadly refers to the area that lies between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. '
She further went on to stress: “I must be clear: Our engagement in Southeast Asia and Indo-Pacific is not against any one country, nor is it designed to make anyone choose between countries.” She reiterated her comment on Monday that the U.S. is “laser focused” on evacuation efforts.
She further went on to stress: “I must be clear: Our engagement in Southeast Asia and Indo-Pacific is not against any one country, nor is it designed to make anyone choose between countries.” She reiterated her comment on Monday that the U.S. is “laser focused” on evacuation efforts.
Didn't the tr*mp administration just spend the last four years attacking China in every way except with the military? So who are the ones actually looking for a war with China again?
PrincessAwesome · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Still beside the point. This is whataboutism.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@PrincessAwesome History really irritates you, eh?
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Nah, she doesn’t want war with China.
War is profitable for many and deadly for many.
But If she does want conflict with China it might come to pass if Beijing decides to attempt to take Taiwan by military force. But that is uncertain if we’d actually defend and aid Taiwan. And it would certainly upset Sen Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who co-sponsored the Taiwan relations act. If we did not aid Taiwan if attacked.
War is profitable for many and deadly for many.
But If she does want conflict with China it might come to pass if Beijing decides to attempt to take Taiwan by military force. But that is uncertain if we’d actually defend and aid Taiwan. And it would certainly upset Sen Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who co-sponsored the Taiwan relations act. If we did not aid Taiwan if attacked.
@AthrillatheHunt With Anderson AFB in Guam, I doubt that. Samoa? Not sure but that being given up...questionable.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@soar2newhighs the existing military base is the main reason China will ask for it .
BlueVeins · 22-25
@QuixoticSoul It's true that we don't recognize Taiwanese Independence, but it's not as if the US is taking that stance out of apathy or self-interest. The US joined the One China Policy because it doesn't want the PRC to attempt an invasion of Taiwan, and Taiwan uses the One China Principle for the same reasons. I don't know whether or not we would intervent in an invasion (I hope we would), but I don't think it makes sense to consider the One China Policy a sign that we don't support them given that it's kinda what they want.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@soar2newhighs
Whether the Chinese will take Mattis' warning? Who knows.
But it's good insight and the book overall is a good read.
Whether the Chinese will take Mattis' warning? Who knows.
But it's good insight and the book overall is a good read.
@beckyromero A video I watched and mentioned in a post worth watching is “The coming war on China”. Some of what’s going on in this thread is covered in the video.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@soar2newhighs
That China is increasing their military power is undeniable.
Taiwan is of course the major issue.
That China is increasing their military power is undeniable.
Taiwan is of course the major issue.
PrincessAwesome · 22-25, F
I know she was headed to Viet Nam. Was she specifically saying we should militarily engage China? If so, I’d be inclined to believe she spoke on her own, and not by Joe telling her to.
ron122 · 41-45, M
Our military's more worried about being woke than it is about fighting wars.
BigBulge · 41-45, M
That sounds like crazy talk.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
Posturing at this point
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.