Just to refresh everyone's memory.
U.S. Deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan Decline Dramatically in 2008
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
Thanks, mate! At least now I know I wasn't going crazy and someone else noticed that.
Just to refresh everyone's memory.
China is an economic rival of the United States with regional ambitions of pushing the U.S. out of the vital western Pacific theater and obtaining a dominant position over the area and key U.S. allies such as Japan, South Korea and various others.
China is a nuclear power of probable future hostility to the United States but which the U.S. can deal with now at little risk to its own national survival.
Quick, call General Eisenhower, he'll know what to do!
On what grounds do you suppose future hostility? Any that wouldn't apply to basically any other nation?
Any nation has the right to ensure its own survival as long as the methods it uses doesn't amount to something like genocide.
And in cold statistics, a few hundred thousand killed (or even a few million of a nation the size of China) does NOT constitute genocide.
But why the obsession in this thread with China? Why doesn't anyone comment on how great it is that U.S. combat deaths dropped so much in 2008?
And in cold statistics, a few hundred thousand killed (or even a few million of a nation the size of China) does NOT constitute genocide.
But why the obsession in this thread with China? Why doesn't anyone comment on how great it is that U.S. combat deaths dropped so much in 2008?
One of their generals a few years back threatened to destroy Los Angeles with a nuclear weapon if the U.S. supported Taiwan in a future conflict.
I don't recall Russia, France, United Kingdom, India, or Pakistan threatening to nuke Los Angeles in modern times.
Because you've allowed (and helped) the discussion to be drawn away from your original topic and now the alligators have you in the weeds. They can twist you around all day until you get tired enough and quit. Don't get let into the weeds.
<insert Star Wars 'stay on target' threadbomb here>
Russia threatened to Nuke us all some weeks ago over some Georgia bullshit, Jacques Chirac started going senile in 2007 threatening to nuke the planet, India used to be a pal of the Soviets in the 80s making all kinds of vague threats, Pakistan has plenty of muslim generals/MPs with various outbursts against America and the United Kingdom....well the UK is different
It is the best ally of the United States. The politically Brits are kinda like a 51st state but behind all the backrubs I'm sure we've got one ICBM targeted on top of London and they've got one cross haired back on us. It's just a matter of military formality.
Yes and if you look at thing objectively from their perspective you will realize he's damn right.
Think how would the United States of America feel if suddenly China put some big commie Chinese dude in charge of Hawaii like an Emperor, Puerto Rico or Alaska and suddenly everyone in school was reading the values of dynasties and communism.
We'd be pretty pissed off that's what and you would have guys like Rummy and Cheney threatening to bomb them back to the stoneage.
China has a claim to Taiwan going way back, maybe even longer to our claim on Native American territory.
Now here's your history lesson Mr uber patriot Dayton :
A war broke out between the commies and KMT, the era was post WW2/late1940s
China's troops and the USA actually fought next to each other in WW2 but this tune was soon to change. First the Soviet/Commie sphere started to grow in China and second rather than help rebuild China post WW2 America decided it wanted a piece of the pie and backed generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang so we all could get a piece of that action.
Just like it was to come in Nam 20 yrs later our side didn't win too good and lost the civil war.
Some KMT won many battles but overall they took a beating from Mao's men, they ran off to Taiwan and have mainly viewed the commies as a bunch of thieves who stole Beijing from them. The KMT party is Taiwanese but it doesn't mean democracy since they mostly ruled the Island of Taiwan like an Ironfist and only recently did they drop the martial law thing and allow free and fair elections. There is an element of seperatism but its small with absolutley nothing to back them up, even the hardline George W Bush accepted Taiwan is part of China and re affirmed the 1-CHINA policy, a pervious policy from Nixon, Reagan, Clinton admins.
Why we don't like the commies is mostly because of their shitty human rights record but with shit going today on like abu ghraib America doesn't make a good preacher no more.
What America doesn't want with China is a bunch of commie tanks and bomber aircraft rolling in to retake Taiwan, America wants a more peaceful and democratic solution. Isn't this the easier and more productive option rather than have two idiot nuclear generals butting heads?
PS
You might beat the Chinese but you aren't really going to win the war since in order to 'win' you are probably going to inherit a large number of American cities blasted into radioactive craters.
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Decline Dramatically in 2008
According to his user profile he still has TNZ access.
According to his user profile he still has TNZ access.
Just because they are a rival doesn't mean we should attack them. We're talking about human beings here. People. Someone who has a sig about having people saved should be able to understand that.
Re: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Decline Dramatically in 2008
^^ For any given ideology, only certain people count as people.
^^ For any given ideology, only certain people count as people.
It doesn't matter. This is still on Topic for Misc. And amusing, in a sad, surreal kind of way.
Re: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Decline Dramatically in 2008
Well then the OP should of said he thought that rather than claiming his TNZ access had been revoked therefore he couldn't post it there.
Well then the OP should of said he thought that rather than claiming his TNZ access had been revoked therefore he couldn't post it there.
Well, then, send him a PM that says, "Liar, liar, pants on fire" if it means that much to you. But it's irrelevant to this discussion and the Thread won't be moved or closed.
They're probably pandering to the general anti-intellectual attitude of the readers of their more conservative editorial section and to the education level of their readership at large:
A senior US Senator and presidential candidate sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys tune during the campaign. Your point is? I guess Iran is justified in taking action against the US now by your insane rationale.
Yep, this post is the very model of civility and respect. People "obsess" over the deaths of individuals in all wars (well, people with empathy do - not you obviously), it's just that when the deaths are in the service of a just war (like WWII) they understand that it's an unfortunate but sometimes necessary evil. Whereas when it's in service of a war built on falsehoods and/or questionable motives the deaths seem so much more tragic in their pointlessness.
I like how you advocate just sweeping the uncomfortable details of how war affects the individual under the rug in favor of promoting unquestioning service and sacrifice to the state above all else. Perfectly in keeping with the rest of your fascist ideology though, so I'll give you points for consistency.
You lost points earlier in the thread when you said this:
But now I realize that you probably said that with regret, as 'Starship Troopers' seems to be your preferred model for government, so the points are restored. Well done.
Last edited:
Genocide is the "deliberate" attempt to destroy an entire race or distinct group of people.
The deaths of less than 1% of a national population wouldn't qualify even if it was a deliberate act.
And the U.S. never sets out to deliberately kill large numbers of noncombatants.
Genocide is the "deliberate" attempt to destroy an entire race or distinct group of people.
As compaired to an "accidental" attempt to destroy an entire race or distinct group of people?
What would constitute 'genocide' then in your book? If not a few hundred thousand?
Genocide is the "deliberate" attempt to destroy an entire race or distinct group of people.
As compaired to an "accidental" attempt to destroy an entire race or distinct group of people?
Definitions are definitions.
One reason I don't consider the deaths of millions of Armenians in Turkey to be genocide.
Most of them starved or were killed by disease.
But starvation and disease was rampant among the Turks as well. So the deaths of so many Armenians, while tragic, seems to be simply a natural consequence of war and its aftermath.