Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » South China Sea.....some indicators for what is coming

South China Sea.....some indicators for what is coming

+5
Vikingwoman
Wordslinger
del.capslock
PkrBum
2seaoat
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

2seaoat



The newest launch of an ICBM by North Korea can easily reach almost all of the United States. The question is how did North Korea make quantum leaps in the last six months in rocket design where prior rockets were landing in the sea of Japan. The North Koreans have been getting help. The Chinese in their nuclear program got help from the Russians. Is it the Russians, Chinese, or both who are actively helping North Korea to be a viable proxy threat to the United States.

Again, America has been rendered a paper tiger. Some will blame Presidents over the last fifty years, but the truth is that 1940 technology is not going to be kept in a bottle where hubris and arrogance believe that we are insulated from danger because we opened that bottle first. So why did the Chinese and Russians help a regime which appears to be unhinged? Was it an offensive move, or was it a well thought out strategy that the United States the superior power must now fear an irrational player with nuclear weapons when it projects power in East asia? Could it be that the world is safer with North Korea being a Nuclear Power? I think there is an answer. Dismantle the offensive imperial colonial military, and replace it with a defensive military which is many fold smaller and does not threaten other nations.

2seaoat



Right on time. Clueless

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-disappointed-in-china-for-not-doing-more-on-north-korea/ar-AAp1PJQ?li=BBnb7Kz

PkrBum

PkrBum

During the crucial time that China rushed to create the military islands... Obama sat on his thumb.

The weak sauce potus. It's too late now.

2seaoat



During the crucial time that China rushed to create the military islands... Obama sat on his thumb.

The weak sauce potus. It's too late now.


I am curious. What would you have done? I know what I would have done. Consider the islands to be within the Chinese self defense perimeter. Then I would have moved 90% of all American families and military personnel from Korea and consolidated the base in Japan, and slowly as the Japanese took responsibility to rearm themselves completely withdrew. I would have closed most of our bases in east Asia and Europe and developed a secondary defense strategy where we were not the primary policeman of the world. The Chinese gave plenty of warnings to America to stop the advance to the Chinese border as we were defeating the North Koreans.....we were clueless much like we are now to the Chinese belief that we have the intent to control China.

No the Chinese were going to build a self defense ring which can be a very good defense to the superior carrier advantage America has. The Chinese are far less our enemy than the Russians who have historically been an Imperial power, which Putin makes no bones about the same.

2seaoat



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/south-korea-asks-to-increase-its-firepower/ar-AAp1n1V?li=BBnb7Kz

The perfect storm.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:  ...where we were not the primary policeman of the world.

I swear, Seaoat, you say some really stupid shit sometimes. Perhaps you recall the unpleasantness that engulfed the entire planet in the middle of the last century.

With the United States acting as "the primary policeman of the world", that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era. Surely even you, with your obviously below average intellectual capacity, can see that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era.

There is no proof of the same. Absolutely none. Also, it is convenient that you once again have to be tutored on history as Cambodia did not happen under your illusion.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era.

There is no proof of the same.  Absolutely none.  Also, it is convenient that you once again have to be tutored on history as Cambodia did not happen under your illusion.

Since you're apparently brain-damaged, I'll explain

and I'll type    r    e    a    l       s   l    o    w    so you can  

keep up.




Since the Second World War--am I going too fast for you?--

America has been the preeminent world power. There were

two World Wars in the 20th century. We call them the First

World War and the Second World War. Are you following me

so far?




Since that Second World War, there has not been another

war that involved most of the nations of the world. That era

without a World War is called the Pax Americana. America

was able to enforce the terms of that era because it had lots

of ships and rockets and big bombs. Still with me?





World Wars are very bad. Times without World Wars are

better. There has been fighting all over the world, including

Cambodia, but none involving so many nations as the World

Wars. There was also a war of just ideas without bombs and

guns called the Cold War. Because America was much

stronger and because its ideas appealed to more people, it

won the Cold War. This is a good thing. When one nation is

stronger than all the others it can make them do what it

wants and if that nation wants no World Wars, it

will get its way. Got it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

del.capslock

del.capslock

I guess I went too fast for him. Sorry, seaoat.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I still have no concern.  They are defensive placements.  They are protecting themselves from our imperial military which only a hundred and fifty years earlier the colonial powers invaded and carved up China.  Their actions are directly proportional to our increasing military which is not the department of Defense, but the Department of Invasion.  If you read about General Stillwell in China during WWII as written by barbara tuchman, you can understand that the Chinese have always looked at defense first.  We simply do not have a coherent strategic response to the changing power shifts in the world.   This is a thirty year problem which both parties share.

Obama was so soft that he'll be held complicit. The single worst negotiator and the weakest foreign policy to ever serve as potus. He won't displace Carter... because that's racist. But.... ya.

I wouldn't let him manage anything of mine... a total pantywaist.


Yes, Obama wasn't perfect. But compared to Tangerine Jesus, he's was an icon of intellect, self-control, and dignity. Reality!

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I still have no concern.  They are defensive placements.  They are protecting themselves from our imperial military which only a hundred and fifty years earlier the colonial powers invaded and carved up China.  Their actions are directly proportional to our increasing military which is not the department of Defense, but the Department of Invasion.  If you read about General Stillwell in China during WWII as written by barbara tuchman, you can understand that the Chinese have always looked at defense first.  We simply do not have a coherent strategic response to the changing power shifts in the world.   This is a thirty year problem which both parties share.

Obama was so soft that he'll be held complicit. The single worst negotiator and the weakest foreign policy to ever serve as potus. He won't displace Carter... because that's racist. But.... ya.

I wouldn't let him manage anything of mine... a total pantywaist.


Yes, Obama wasn't perfect.  But compared to Tangerine Jesus, he's was an icon of intellect, self-control, and dignity.  Reality!

His regime was the most corrupt ever, hands down.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era.

There is no proof of the same.  Absolutely none.  Also, it is convenient that you once again have to be tutored on history as Cambodia did not happen under your illusion.

Cambodia was a result of American withdrawal from
Indochina after Vietnam. What do you portend will happen if America withdraws
from the Pacific? The islands China is building are illegal and prohibit freedom
of the seas.

del.capslock

del.capslock

NPAatall wrote:
2seaoat wrote:that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era.

There is no proof of the same.  Absolutely none.  Also, it is convenient that you once again have to be tutored on history as Cambodia did not happen under your illusion.

Cambodia was a result of American withdrawal from
Indochina after Vietnam. What do you portend will happen if America withdraws
from the Pacific?  The islands China is building are illegal and prohibit freedom
of the seas.

OH BOY! This is gonna be fun to watch!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



CNN reported tonight that top Russian scientist have been working in the North Korean Nuclear program, and that Chinese companies are working close with the same.   The new alliances are forming as a result of the perception that America is the aggressor.   The North Korean conflict probability is certain if America does not adjust our strategic goals.  We need to be very careful in our strategic plan.

Of course the islands are totally against international law.  That is an essential component of the strategy.   The United States can destroy any single nation in short order.  However, the evolving alliances which perceive America as the aggressor are growing.   Retrenchment with new defensive measures, and enhanced roles of key allies is essential to our transition.

The folks in Cambodia died because of our interjection of American power into a zone which did NOT involve American interests.   It was the very thing which IKE warned us.  We need to take our country back or the consequences of building more vulnerable aircraft carriers and putting all our eggs into high tech weapons which produce high profits and have no place in a global war of attrition where our carriers have been neutralized.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:The folks in Cambodia died because of our interjection of American power into a zone which did NOT involve American interests.   It was the very thing which IKE warned us.  

Up until this statement, seaoat, I had a grudging respect for your intelligence and your grasp of post-war American history, but this ridiculous comment is beyond the pale. It borders on fantasy or some drug-induced hallucination--not that there's anything wrong with that. The problem lies in your inability to distinguish between that and objective reality--a mental state psychiatric  professionals refer to as "Tinfoil Hat Crazy".

It was Eisenhower who gave voice to the famous "Domino Theory" to explain his massive military aid to the French around the time of Dien Bien Phu. Two American pilots died during that famous battle, supplying aid to the beleaguered French at that base.

After Dien Bien Phu fell to the Viet Minh and after the Geneva Conference, he secretly sent "advisors", the Military Assistance Advisory Group or MAAG to South Vietnam, the first U.S. Military in the country. THAT was the beginning of what we call the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese call it the American War.

Although Eisenhower is certainly a great President, he was no saint. He understood the necessity of projecting American power to avoid a Third World War.

He authorized covert interventions into the internal affairs of other nations and provided aid to dictators in the interest of protecting "the free world." He spent half or more of the federal budget on the armed services, even as he proclaimed that "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired" was "a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." Yet Eisenhower knew that real security meant preserving fundamental values.
https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/foreign-affairs

Really, seaoat, try to get your mind right.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



Gee buddy I am feeling better about Cambodia already, but not so good about those Russian scientist and Chinese companies who are advancing the Korean nuclear program on steroids......so you think this can be solved by our military?

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:Gee buddy I am feeling better about Cambodia already, but not so good about those Russian scientist and Chinese companies who are advancing the Korean nuclear program on steroids......so you think this can be solved by our military?

Where did I say that? This is a classic example of misdirection, a technique at which you are a master. What I said was that YOUR statement was wrong. Nice try. Reply to my post not the crazy shit going on in your head.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



It was a simple question....do you think there is a military solution in Korea? Nobody was saying that is your position. Take your time.

del.capslock

del.capslock

del.capslock wrote:
2seaoat wrote:that has been avoided for seventy years. Reducing America's military strength would invite a replay of that awful era.

There is no proof of the same.  Absolutely none.  Also, it is convenient that you once again have to be tutored on history as Cambodia did not happen under your illusion.

Since you're apparently brain-damaged, I'll explain

and I'll type    r    e    a    l       s   l    o    w    so you can  

keep up.




Since the Second World War--am I going too fast for you?--

America has been the preeminent world power. There were

two World Wars in the 20th century. We call them the First

World War and the Second World War. Are you following me

so far?




Since that Second World War, there has not been another

war that involved most of the nations of the world. That era

without a World War is called the Pax Americana. America

was able to enforce the terms of that era because it had lots

of ships and rockets and big bombs. Still with me?





World Wars are very bad. Times without World Wars are

better. There has been fighting all over the world, including

Cambodia, but none involving so many nations as the World

Wars. There was also a war of just ideas without bombs and

guns called the Cold War. Because America was much

stronger and because its ideas appealed to more people, it

won the Cold War. This is a good thing. When one nation is

stronger than all the others it can make them do what it

wants and if that nation wants no World Wars, it

will get its way. Got it?

This is what I believe. You really have to make some effort to keep up.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



We have become the world's enemy, and we put a crazy person in charge.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-power-scares-7-countries-including-allies/ar-AApgDe9?li=BBnb7Kz

PkrBum

PkrBum

Is he still bombing as many Muslim countries as Obama did? Not that y'all minded.

2seaoat



I have argued for ten years that we need to disengage entirely from the middle east and begin rapidly making our military less offensive and more defensive. I personally believe that America has never been more vulnerable as we have poured our resources into profits for MIC, and are not prepared to defend our nation. Our entire focus has been the aggressor. The bad guy. Yet, the propaganda I hear is appalling. Mind numbing stupid that a we owe our freedoms under the bill of rights not to journalist or lawyers, but to a soldier in Iraq.

I am watching a documentary on Viet Nam, and the whole group think can convince a nation that a bunch of farmers in Viet Nam were a risk to Americans thousands of miles away. This group think has America convinced that China and North Korea are the aggressors. The rest of the world is not so certain, and now with President Trump in office, even our allies are beginning to question the entire premise of projection of American power.

PkrBum

PkrBum

China is expanding control into important international shipping lanes. That is not defensive Poindexter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea

2seaoat



Started the thread a couple of weeks ago.....it is apparent where this will go.

2seaoat



I am so sick of how idiotic the news media has become. They sit around talking about rocket payloads and range. Hell, the warheads are already here. Some can be the size of a mini fridge, and like the french we put all our confidence in anti missile systems when you can place tactical nukes in storage containers. Hell, you put them in the Panhandle and take out four military bases. They are not going to follow the rules. They will kill our service families and millions of South Koreans, and they will strike us on our mainland. I fully expect in the next six months a nuclear explosion somewhere which will not take out anything, but will send a clear message. America is the aggressor, and we will not play by the rules. Leave us alone.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » South China Sea.....some indicators for what is coming

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum