to flee the country and go towards canada.... on a serious note. This article proves how the world sees us act like a paper tiger and pussy when it comes to fighting 2nd and 3rd rate enemies. The world sees the US and the europeans as weaklings because of the way we react to a war with only 2000 casualties. That's miniscule. Hey, china loses that much during water breaks. I no i'm speaking in hyperbole, but its not me saying that we're pussies, it's all of the orient that is leveling this accusation. This was the same thing when mogadishu happened and osama bin laden concluded that america was ripe for attack because we pulled out and left with our guns up our asses when we were fighting 3rd world amateurs. Funny how it was the same John murtha that suggested we pull out of somalia when clinton was running the whole show. I myself believe america can overcome any obstacle, and the chineese don't frighten me. But this is not a view from a leftist or conservative. This is a view looking in from the outside.. HEre it goes. heres the article... Share your thoughts.
East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China
Chinese troops lined up for a review by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao on Nov. 20 in Beijing (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.
Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.
"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.
The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.
"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."
Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.
"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.
As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.
On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.
During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.
For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections.
"I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.
Copyright © 2005 News World Communications
Console Login
Yeah, because your rah rah cheerleading is much more important than the informed opinions of the regional leaders in the area. China is NOT a 2nd or 3rd rate power. They are the premier sovereign military threat in the world today. , they almost drove us off the Korean peninsula 50 years ago with NO nukes and a bunch of surplus Russian WWII equipment. What it boils down to is they have more people, well over a billion. They'll just attrit you down to nothing.
I somewhat surprised that the leaders of Asian Countries would get into open hypothetical discussions about such a war, is there some enormous amount of friction or animosity between the two that I'm not aware of that would supercede the common interest of avoiding another World War?East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China
It does bring to mind the verse from a Stevie Wonder song; "Some day at Christmas, men won't be boys, they'll play with bombs like kids play with toys."
Neither Country would win and God help us all if we ever went to war with them.
China could kick some serious ass and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the US military, right now, is stretched way too thin and we ARE vulnerable.
My thoughts are, you're a dumbass! That macho crap "the chinese don't frighten me" is what starts meaningless wars in the first place! What an idiot!to flee the country and go towards canada.... on a serious note. This article proves how the world sees us act like a paper tiger and pussy when it comes to fighting 2nd and 3rd rate enemies. The world sees the US and the europeans as weaklings because of the way we react to a war with only 2000 casualties. That's miniscule. Hey, china loses that much during water breaks. I no i'm speaking in hyperbole, but its not me saying that we're pussies, it's all of the orient that is leveling this accusation. This was the same thing when mogadishu happened and osama bin laden concluded that america was ripe for attack because we pulled out and left with our guns up our asses when we were fighting 3rd world amateurs. Funny how it was the same John murtha that suggested we pull out of somalia when clinton was running the whole show. I myself believe america can overcome any obstacle, and the chineese don't frighten me. But this is not a view from a leftist or conservative. This is a view looking in from the outside.. HEre it goes. heres the article... Share your thoughts.
Stretched thin or not no I don't believe any superpower would allow their respective Country to lose in war to another superpower without resorting to the use nuclear weapons.
What we now have is a rather tenous set of checks and balances. "You don't use yours and I won't use mine."
Let's hope it stays that way.
Winning a conventional war with China on the Asian continent would be difficult to begin with simply because of their population. They have four times the population of the United States.
It's like the Nazis versus the Soviets in World War II. The Nazis were better warriors, with better technology, better leadership, etc. But the Soviets bled and froze their way to victory.
The same would have been true if we had fought the Soviet Union on the ground in Asia during the Cold War. Korea and Vietnam were difficult enough.
I think we'd have to use nuclear weapons to win. They'd use nukes as well, so in the end perhaps the United States would be victorous, but there'd only be like 30 million Americans left alive, and the entire Pacific Rim would be radioactive rubble. It's the same MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario we had with the Soviets.
So war with China is not a very good option. Fortunately, I don't see why we would need to go to war with China in the near to medium term. Aren't they one of our biggest trading partners? What would be their motivation to risk cutting off the flow of foreign capital which is making their Party leadership richer than they ever could have imagined under Maoism?
I guess, hypothetically, if they went on a bloodthirsty landgrab* a la the Japanese in the 1930's, we'd have to make some very unpleasant decisions. But even with the Japanese, we tried negotiation and containment until there were no other options. And even then, they attacked us.
Let's go kick some ass American style. They insulted us right?
bunch of ing cowboys
The chineese didnt insult us, our own allies did. And nobody is advocating we take action, myself included. Read the article jackass. It's just a point about how our losses are percieved around the world.
Dude, why post?You can't even read. I said that Mogadishu and the iraqi insurgency were 2nd and 3rd rate forces. I said nothing about china.
I did anything but cheerlead in my post. I said that we portray ourselves as too good to get down and dirty when it comes to war, and that that portrayal has caused us to look like paper tigers. Thats our asian allies saying that not me. I don't believe we're paper tigers myself. Our country acted strong and bold after 9/11. All I'm saying is that our reflexes to a 2000 casualty war is biting us in the butt, especially if we were to use our might for diplomacy issues against N korea or CHina. Neither one of them would take us seriously since they know that any president that had to use force would have to fight them and the left in his own country. If we tell china or N korea to back off on an invasion, they'll call our bluff. Every thing has a consequence.
my post was more of a sarcastic one, really. Just seems like we Americans have this at ude that we can and should defeat any foe (real or imagined).
No imbecil, you're interpreting a very real and austere claim that the US would be hard pressed to beat a country whose armed forces probably include 1,000,000 plus infantry. Without the use of nuclear weapons, the US would have to rely on ground forces, and face it, the US would be vastly outnumbered.
Now, you, instead of focusing on parts of the article such as
Which is a very real fact, and one you should be proud of, you immediately jump to "they're calling us pussies"?? That is why I think you're a dumbass!"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
This is a stupid thread.Dude, why post?
I did anything but cheerlead in my post. I said that we portray ourselves as too good to get down and dirty when it comes to war, and that that portrayal has caused us to look like paper tigers. Thats our asian allies saying that not me. I don't believe we're paper tigers myself. Our country acted strong and bold after 9/11. All I'm saying is that our reflexes to a 2000 casualty war is biting us in the butt, especially if we were to use our might for diplomacy issues against N korea or CHina. Neither one of them would take us seriously since they know that any president that had to use force would have to fight them and the left in his own country. If we tell china or N korea to back off on an invasion, they'll call our bluff. Every thing has a consequence.
People are reacting negatively to 2000 casualties because they believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary. If that's your belief then even one casaulty is too many.
What would you have this country do, become a bunch of blood thirsty savages constantly flexing our muscle at every opportunity? I think we are a little more civilized than that.
Manu mania! What are you yappin about. In a decade you're country will be butlers to venezuela.
But aside all sarcasm. The article was stating how we would cave in if the chineese launched an offensive on america. By then, we should shove all the casualty sympathy up your ass because we're not nation building anymore we're defending our lives. Yeah i realize that being named a civic society is a good thing. But what at that? Does that mean that when we lost 50,000 troops under FDR that we weren't a civic society. Maybe the japanese gov didn't mean that comment in a complimentary way.
Last edited by gtownspur; 11-23-2005 at 11:47 AM.
Much of the industralized world has eschewed their own militarization because they believed they could rely on the U.S. military for protection.
If they no longer believe that, then they will escalate themselves for their own security.
Also, if foreign powers perceive American vulnerability, it may embolden them towards more aggressive action.
And since China is fundamentally illiberal, this ought to be a concern for people who claim to care about such things.
Quite the contrary, i expect america to be civil and dignant in war, but not too talk big and then not follow up on its support for our troops like the other 15% of americans who lent support for iraq the first time we went in and caved later becuase of bad press coverage and constant bombardment and focus on casualties rather than achievments. Just think about this assertion P-brain, no one including myself wants us to become the Monguls, but none of us want to be shamed and uncredible when it comes to using our strength for diplomacy. You've got to remember that our strength is our diplomacy. After all the ing about how you closet liberals heart diplomacy, one would of thought you would pick up on the ramifications of these leader's words and thoughts. But no. In order for the left to be happy, america just can't be strong militarily any more. No, now we have to be weaklings in the art of appeasement and diplomacy too at that. I mean what the do everyone of you want?
The Asian countries are concerned that the American people will regard defense of our allies as equally unnecessary.
So your solution is to support any decision that the country makes to go to war? That's bull . You can't just have blind loyalty and support every action your country takes. Especially, when the motives behind the actions are questionable.
what does any of this have to do with the at udes of Americans towards other countries?
NO dimwit. I didnt support playing peace cop in bosnia. But that's beside the point. WHether you were for or against the invasion of Grenada, Iraq, and Flint Michigan and Palm beach countyfor that matter, the point is frankly that if we were to even try to have peace, it couldn't be done. Our diplomacy is useless if we can't back it with force. Could you imagine Mexico telling china to back off taiwan?
. Well then, if you want to go back to the era of the triple alliance and no superpower to keep check of despots, then go ahead and go on being defensive about this rather than have an actual discussion.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were interested in discussing things germane to the thread. I didn't realize you were just making a gratuitous slam against the way you imagine Americans think. Carry on.
no, just people like you and gtown.
You can't tell the difference between anybody to the right of Che Guevara.
the one that posts here?
Now you are going to piss Manumania off!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
