OMG - Now Bush is talking about WAR WITH CHINA too
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
STAFF WRITER , WITH DPA AND CNA, TAIPEI AND WASHINGTON
Friday, Jun 10, 2005,Page 1
Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
When asked in an interview with the Fox News TV Channel, "Do we [the
US] still stand by an agreement, Mr. President, that if Taiwan is ever
invaded, we will come to the defense of Taiwan?" Bush said: "Yes, we
do. It's called the Taiwan Relations Act."
Bush also said he believed that "time will heal" the political dispute
between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
"My attitude is that time will heal this issue. And therefore we're
trying to make sure that neither side provokes the other through
unilateral action," he said.
(snip)
Johnny Bravo
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Frank Pittel
: On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
: <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
: >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
: Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
: treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
: country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
: One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
: closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Rincewind
this:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the US
>>would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough country
> decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
The Useless States sold its integrity when it invaded Iraq for oil!
--
Rinso
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
CD
when it cant win a war in a 3rd world country like Iraq??
"Rincewind" <ri...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.10....@unseen.edu...
You Know Who
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>
>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>
>Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
You think we shouldn't honor our treaties now?
Axe
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> : >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
> : Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> : treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> : country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
> : One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
> : closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
>
> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
No, we realize we CAN'T do anything to stop China from invading
anywhere. The difference is some of us learn from past mistakes and you
obviously don't. There aren't enough Democrats being born to finish the
wars you have already started.
Chris Morton
HOMICIDE says...
>
>
>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
So, got proof yet that the Holocaust didn't happen?
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Jeffrae
Even Clinton knows this.
Jeff
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq so don't give us any BS about how
concerned you repugs are with rule of law.
John Blackwell
Wrong again, you drunken slut.
You Know Who
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>> >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>
>> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
>HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
What law was broken?
Chris Morton
murdered her boy friend says...
So, got proof yet that the Holocaust didn't happen, Judy?
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
>
> What law was broken?
We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
force of law. Under the UN charter, we weren't suppose to
invade other countries without the permission of the UN
Security council. We didn't really have that.
We tried to kinda skirt around it a number of ways, all of
which are dubious in a court of law.
1) We got a resolution in the UN that "serious consequences"
would occur. It is highly debatable that the resolution
would have passed if we had said at the time that this was
permission to invade.
2) We also have variably claimed authority as a function of
the surrender treaty signed by Iraq and the end of Gulf War 1.0.
This is also a bit dubious in that the UN declared an end
to that war and the continuing activities were under the
auspices of the UN security council.
3) We also tried to use Iraq's continuing violation of
various aspects of the "No Fly Zone" to justify our
actions. However, the No Fly Zone apparently was never
approved by the UN in any particular way.
International Law is a vague place and our obligation
to it, as a government, is a bit strange. The consequences
for a government violating it are a bit vague too. Individuals
can get in a bit of a jam, but what governments do is a
little less clear. But there is little doubt we violated the
various spirits and intents of treaties to which we were
signatories.
Matt
Given that you believe the Iraq war was legal, when it was in violation
of treaties signed through the UN, doesn't this make you a hypocrite?
Yes, I thought so.
Matt
Matt
There were quite a few, but I'll let you read about it yourself. You
can just save yourself the trouble, ignore the link, and tell me its a
liberal link. Everyone else reading the group will probably read it
though.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
Matt
mordacp...@hotmail.com
> As much as Bush is an idiot, he needs to to stand up to them.
Only an idiot would stand up when they know damned well they're going
to get the shit kicked out of them.
> Even Clinton knows this.
Clinton wouldn't be stupid enough to provoke China the way Bush has
been doing on trade issues, currency issues, Taiwan and their military
spending while negotiating in a position of weakness.
You Know Who
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
Which law was broken?
You Know Who
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>> >> >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>> >>
>> >> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>> >> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>> >> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>> >
>> >HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
>>
>> What law was broken?
>
>There were quite a few, but I'll let you read about it yourself.
Didn't think you could name the law that was broken. Have you found my
house yet, coward?
You Know Who
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>> >softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>> >
>> >http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>> >
>> >Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
>>
>> You think we shouldn't honor our treaties now?
>
>Given that you believe the Iraq war was legal,
I asked "which law was broken." Learn to read, Matt.
>when it was in violation
>of treaties signed through the UN,
the broken laws of which you are so far unable to name
>doesn't this make you a hypocrite?
It makes you pretty stupid to think one has something to do with the
other. Have you found my house yet, coward?
Matt
I realize you are clueless, Billy, but I thought you at least had some
vague idea what you were spouting off about.
Any treaty or pact entered into by the United States becomes a part of
US law, as per the US Constitution. Did you flunk third grade too?
What a maroon.
matt
Matt
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >You Know Who wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
> >> >softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
> >> >
> >> >Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
> >>
> >> You think we shouldn't honor our treaties now?
> >
> >Given that you believe the Iraq war was legal,
>
> I asked "which law was broken." Learn to read, Matt.
I did, learn to comprehend, Billy.
>
> >when it was in violation
> >of treaties signed through the UN,
>
> the broken laws of which you are so far unable to name
>
> >doesn't this make you a hypocrite?
>
>
> It makes you pretty stupid to think one has something to do with the
> other. Have you found my house yet, coward?
Yes, I think you are pretty stupid, Billy. So does everyone else.
Matt
Larry Graham
Yer house is in San Jose, according to the Reverend Shawn Cole.
I mean, how hard could it be to find?
Harder than the law Bush supposedly broke?
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >
> >You Know Who wrote:
[snip]
> >> What law was broken?
> >
> > We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
> >treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
> >force of law.
[snip]
> Which law was broken?
Yer a bit slow on the uptake ain't ya.
Larry Graham
>
> You Know Who wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
>><ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You Know Who wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>What law was broken?
>>>
>>> We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
>>>treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
>>>force of law.
>
> [snip]
>
>>Which law was broken?
>
>
> Yer a bit slow on the uptake ain't ya.
Still trying to find what law was broken?
You Know Who
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >You Know Who wrote:
>> >> In talk.politics.guns laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>> >> >softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>> >> >
>> >> >Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
>> >>
>> >> You think we shouldn't honor our treaties now?
>> >
>> >Given that you believe the Iraq war was legal,
>>
>> I asked "which law was broken." Learn to read, Matt.
>
>I did,
LOL In your imagination, maybe. Learn to cite- then get back to us.
>> >when it was in violation
>> >of treaties signed through the UN,
>>
>> the broken laws of which you are so far unable to name
>>
>> >doesn't this make you a hypocrite?
>>
>>
>> It makes you pretty stupid to think one has something to do with the
>> other. Have you found my house yet, coward?
>
>Yes, I think
you'll never get that smart.
You Know Who
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >You Know Who wrote:
>> >> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> >> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>> >> >> >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>> >> >> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>> >> >> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>> >> >
>> >> >HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
>> >>
>> >> What law was broken?
>> >
>> >There were quite a few, but I'll let you read about it yourself.
>>
>> Didn't think you could name the law that was broken. Have you found my
>> house yet, coward?
>
>I realize you are
right, since you can't cough up the law that was broken. Keep looking
Matt, you may find it yet.
Find my address yet, coward?
You Know Who
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
>> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >You Know Who wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> What law was broken?
>> >
>> > We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
>> >treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
>> >force of law.
>[snip]
>> Which law was broken?
>
> Yer a bit slow on the uptake ain't ya.
Didn't think you could cite one.
Server 13
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
>
> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
Server 13
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> : >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
> : Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> : treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> : country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
> : One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
> : closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
>
> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
Server 13
Not going to work. That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10
Server 13
Cite, liar?
You Know Who
If it's fake than what's the problem?
Server 13
> In article <1118416365.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Laura Bush
> murdered her boy friend says...
>
>>
>>
>>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>>><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>>
>>> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>>treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>>>country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>>
>>HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq so don't give us any BS about how
>>concerned you repugs are with rule of law.
>
>
> So, got proof yet that the Holocaust didn't happen, Judy?
lol Cite where he said that?
Server 13
Always fun to watch clueless repubs act tough over a wire. lol
Server 13
> In talk.politics.guns laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>>softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>>
>>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>>
>>Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
>
>
> You think we shouldn't honor our treaties now?
That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
Server 13
> In article <mk9ia1935h2b9f0rc...@4ax.com>, laura bush - VEHICULAR
> HOMICIDE says...
>
>>
>>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>
>
> So, got proof yet that the Holocaust didn't happen?
>
>
Cite where he said that? lol
You Know Who
> Always fun to watch clueless repubs act tough over a wire.
Matt's not a Republican you dope!
You Know Who
You don't honor treaties? If the war is fake then what's the problem?
Chris Morton
Path:
spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.impeach.bush,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Holocaust never happened Re: WTC-7 WTC-7 WTC-7 WTC-7
WTC-7
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:59:57 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <h2ot2094c8b0db9i4...@4ax.com>
References: <780ea958.0402...@posting.google.com>
<fSrXb.4559$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 27
Xref: spln talk.politics.libertarian:502082 alt.impeach.bush:265261
talk.politics.guns:1717529
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:17:15 GMT, Bill Levinson
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> Time to remind everyone again that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job
>> and the proof is the collapse of World Trade Center Building number 7,
>> the 600 foot high skyscraper across the street from the twin towers.
>> WTC-7 also collapsed on 9-11 EVEN THOUGH NOTHING HIT IT!!!. And like
>> the twins, it collapsed straight down like a perfect demolition job.
>> WTC-7 was unquestionably brought down by explosives and that means the
>> twin towers were most likely brought down similarly. But how many
>> americans know about this?. The almighty gover-media has done its
>> usual great job of censoring the truth but today we have the internet.
>> Read about it.
>>
>> http://wtc7.net/
>
>
>Tell us again how the Holocaust never happened, either (as you did a
>couple of weeks ago).
>
No 6,000,000 jews were killed in the holocaust. That number was just
made up by the allies to give them cover for the millions of civilians
they killed with their urban bombing. Next question.
*****
And here he ADMITS he said it:
*****
Path:
news2.newsguy.com!lana.pathlink.com!lex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats
Subject: Re: AWOL-BUSH BREAKS PROMISE TO SOLDIERS
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:57:05 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <ce00805m80iij2kgv...@4ax.com>
References: <gisu70pcrk24os8ln...@4ax.com>
<p51v705dl4hjtc2c5...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 25
Xref: news2.newsguy.com talk.politics.guns:1749820
alt.politics.liberalism:459891 alt.politics.democrats:290343
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:01:22 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:44:40 -0600, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
><> wrote:
>
>>Army Lengthens Iraq Tours Despite Pledge
>
>Before you pay any attention to what this person says, you might want
>to consider that he also said this:
>
>
>"Everyone but you knows the jews were behind 9-11."
>
>"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster
>lie from the gover-media."
>
>"Stop using that term homophobia, you idiot. Normal people don't fear
>the queers. We just don't like them. Call me a homobigot."
You're a liar, you hater. I did say quote number two but show me
where i said # 1 and 3. Not that i disagree with the statements, but
i never said them, you repulsive hater. Put up or shut up, you
hatefilled nazi..
*****
Or how about THIS one:
*****
Path:
spln!lex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.guns,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: KILL FAGS, FATTIES, SMOKERS, & SPEEDERS
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:10:31 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <jr0o309oas9ii4198...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 6
Xref: spln alt.politics.democrats.d:805665 talk.politics.guns:1723459
alt.society.liberalism:1075881
I'm sick of all these worthless people who CHOOSE to lead unhealthy
lifestyles and when they get sick or injured, force the rest of us to
pay for their troubles either thru higher taxes or insurance.
Throw in the gun loonies too. They're always shooting off a foot and
making somebody else pay the bill.
*****
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
Matt
I *think*, if you *read*, you will see what law was broken.
But that would involve *reading*. And you, like the other
illiterate, don't seem capable of that.
Bye
Matt
Matt
He doesn't even act tough. He's just another illiterate moron. I've
written him off.
Matt
You Know Who
> I've written him off.
TRANSLATION: "Matt's running away!"
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> > <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> > >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
> >
> > Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> > treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> > country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
> HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq so don't give us any BS about how
> concerned you repugs are with rule of law.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman,
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among
others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United
States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob
Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up
to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not
yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such
weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of
his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is
clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the
Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back
in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining
entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then
moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William
Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.
He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and
is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its
weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of
mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F.
Kerry, Oct 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is
neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been
no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq
has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons
of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and
mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and
ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use
industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute
large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector
Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he
can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John
Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy
towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he
snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors;
and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the
just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security
Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Cole Firearms Inc.
ken frenchu aka Larry Graham wrote:
> You Know Who wrote:
>
>> In talk.politics.guns "Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You Know Who wrote:
>>>
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>>>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>>>>>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>>>>> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>>>>>> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What law was broken?
>>>
>>>
>>> There were quite a few, but I'll let you read about it yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't think you could name the law that was broken. Have you found my
>> house yet, coward?
>
>
> Yer house is in San Jose, according to the Reverend Shawn Cole.
> I mean, how hard could it be to find?
kenny, it should be easy for you to find your mothers house.
Omega
down. The Chinese let it be known back in 2000 that they planned to go to
war with the US over control of the far East.
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mk9ia1935h2b9f0rc...@4ax.com...
:
: A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
: softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
:
: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
:
: Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
:
:
: STAFF WRITER , WITH DPA AND CNA, TAIPEI AND WASHINGTON
: Friday, Jun 10, 2005,Page 1
:
: Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
: US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
: When asked in an interview with the Fox News TV Channel, "Do we [the
: US] still stand by an agreement, Mr. President, that if Taiwan is ever
: invaded, we will come to the defense of Taiwan?" Bush said: "Yes, we
: do. It's called the Taiwan Relations Act."
:
: Bush also said he believed that "time will heal" the political dispute
: between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
:
: "My attitude is that time will heal this issue. And therefore we're
: trying to make sure that neither side provokes the other through
: unilateral action," he said.
:
: (snip)
:
:
Fredric L. Rice
>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
Bush is _such_ a fucking traitor to America.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Fredric L. Rice
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>treaty obligations
<rofl!> Your Fuhrer violates every Geneva Act, Accord, and Convention,
ya fucking rightard traitor buttfuck.
Native American
"Fredric L. Rice" <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11amc5o...@corp.supernews.com...
> Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>treaty obligations
>
> <rofl!> Your Fuhrer violates every Geneva Act, Accord, and Convention,
> ya fucking rightard traitor buttfuck.
ya syphalitic leftard Marxist pusbag
Native American
"Fredric L. Rice" <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
> Bush is _such_ a fucking traitor to America.
Plus he's making mincemeat of the Democrat Party.
Rex Brown
> Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>
>>Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>treaty obligations
>
>
> <rofl!> Your Fuhrer violates every Geneva Act, Accord, and Convention,
> ya fucking rightard traitor buttfuck.
Name one "act", "accord", and/or "convention", you AIDS ridden faggot.
Christopher Morton
Rice) wrote:
>Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>treaty obligations
>
><rofl!> Your Fuhrer violates every Geneva Act, Accord, and Convention,
None of which apply to Al Qaeda.
We could interrogate them with pinking shears and then feed them
through a wood chipper.
No harm, no foul.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
??? The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems are always in a hurry to admit military
defeat and surrender. They have a lot in common with the frogs.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Johnny Bravo
>No, we realize we CAN'T do anything to stop China from invading
>anywhere.
We certainly can. The disparity of naval forces is so large as to
be no contest. The entire Chinese surface navy could easily be
destroyed by 3 US Cruisers. If we send a carrier battle group down
there we will be using the entire Chinese military for target
practice.
China won't be invading Taiwan unless their tanks can swim across on
their own.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>How in tha fuck could the US even begin a war with a real country like China
>when it cant win a war in a 3rd world country like Iraq??
China...real country, ROTFLMAO.
They can take their 1960s airforce and their third world navy and
shake their fists in impotent rage at the Taiwanese across the strait.
Johnny Bravo
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>> >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>
>> Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>> treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
>> country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
>HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq so don't give us any BS about how
>concerned you repugs are with rule of law.
Where did I say anything about rule of law, it's about standing up
for your friends, something you wouldn know nothing about.
Johnny Bravo
>> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
>> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
>> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
>
> That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
You don't need the army to stop a naval force from invading an
island.
Johnny Bravo
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>
>You Know Who wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
>>
>> What law was broken?
>
> We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
>treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
>force of law.
No law can violate the Constitution, not even a treaty. The
Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, for any reason
it deems necessary. There is absolutely no provision in the
Constitituion for Congress to give away it's powers without changing
the Constitution itself. No more than Bush can make a treaty with
Togo declaring himself King for Life and outlawing the Democratic
Party under pain of death.
>Under the UN charter, we weren't suppose to
>invade other countries without the permission of the UN
>Security council. We didn't really have that.
Iraq wasn't supposed to violate the ceasefire agreement more than
FIVE THOUSAND times in a 10 year period either. From 1992 to 2002
Iraq fired on planes over the no-fly zone an average of 10 times per
week. No ceasefire and we were still at war, no new war necessary.
You lose a war and insist on continued fighting, you have to be
prepared to accept the consequences of your stupidity.
Johnny Bravo
>> So, got proof yet that the Holocaust didn't happen, Judy?
>
>lol Cite where he said that?
Previous LB quotes about the Holocaust
> "[the Holocaust] was concocted after the war to justify the allied
> bombing of cities in germany and japan that killed millions of
> innocent civilians."
> "Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster
> lie from the gover-media."
> "The Yanks and the Brits killed millions of CIVILIANS by bombing the
> CITIES of japan and germany with their nuclear and their conventional
> bombs. Why isn't that as roundly criticised as the alledged murder of
> millions of civilians in the Nazi gas chambers.??"
Fredric L. Rice
>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:31:48 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L.
>Rice) wrote:
>>Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>>><xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
>>>>US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>>>Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
>>>treaty obligations
>>
>><rofl!> Your Fuhrer violates every Geneva Act, Accord, and Convention,
>None of which apply to Al Qaeda.
Which is why you baby killing mother fucking Christian bigots attacked
Iraq.
Fredric L. Rice
<rofl!> Another FOX "News" Syndrome hate mongering Christian bigot, I see.
Try depleted uranium munitions, ya fucking Christian hate monger.
Rich Travsky
>
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> : >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
>
> : Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> : country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
>
> : closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
>
> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
Of course, our chances of standing up to China would be a lot better if
Chimpoleon hadn't bogged us down in Iraq, eh Piddle?
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Server 13 <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> : Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> : > In alt.politics.usa.republican Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : > : <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
> : > : >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
> : >
> : > : Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
> : > : treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
> : > : country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
> : >
> : > : One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
> : > : closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
> : >
> : > The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
> : > clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> : > Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
>
> : That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
>
> ??? The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems are always in a hurry to admit military
> defeat and surrender. They have a lot in common with the frogs.
The looney tune brain dead rightards are always brave with someone else is
fighting the fight.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:11:08 -0500, Axe <do...@email.me> wrote:
>
> >No, we realize we CAN'T do anything to stop China from invading
> >anywhere.
>
> We certainly can. The disparity of naval forces is so large as to
> be no contest. The entire Chinese surface navy could easily be
> destroyed by 3 US Cruisers. If we send a carrier battle group down
> there we will be using the entire Chinese military for target
> practice.
>
> China won't be invading Taiwan unless their tanks can swim across on
> their own.
Extremely naive.
China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
before setting foot on it.
You might want to peruse
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf
...
28 July 2003
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE担 REPUBLIC OF CHINA
...
Coercive military options might include, but are not limited to,
information operations, an air and missile campaign, a naval blockade, or
a rapid attack designed to catch Taiwan off guard and present Taipei and
Washington with a fait accompli. With little warning, Beijing might choose
to quickly seize key terrain on Taiwan using amphibious or airborne forces,
with the threat of major destruction as the means to compel some form of
political capitulation.
...
(the 2004 report is here http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf )
Response time would be the key. Thanks to Chimpoleon, we're pretty involved
in Iraq...
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:32:28 -0500, "CD" <SocialPr...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How in tha fuck could the US even begin a war with a real country like China
> >when it cant win a war in a 3rd world country like Iraq??
>
> China...real country, ROTFLMAO.
>
> They can take their 1960s airforce and their third world navy and
> shake their fists in impotent rage at the Taiwanese across the strait.
You might want to peruse the annual reports on China's capabilities befire
believing that...
Rich Travsky
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:35:19 -0500, Server 13 <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
> >> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> >> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
> >
> > That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
>
> You don't need the army to stop a naval force from invading an
> island.
IF a naval force is used...
Paratroops?
RT
Johnny Bravo
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:11:08 -0500, Axe <do...@email.me> wrote:
>>
>> >No, we realize we CAN'T do anything to stop China from invading
>> >anywhere.
>>
>> We certainly can. The disparity of naval forces is so large as to
>> be no contest. The entire Chinese surface navy could easily be
>> destroyed by 3 US Cruisers. If we send a carrier battle group down
>> there we will be using the entire Chinese military for target
>> practice.
>>
>> China won't be invading Taiwan unless their tanks can swim across on
>> their own.
>
>Extremely naive.
>
>China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
>before setting foot on it.
Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
Even so, a substantial missle force can be countered, especially by
a US surface group which are designed to counter that kind of threat.
>You might want to peruse
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf
I have, apparently you haven't read it yet.
"China likely would not be willing to initiate any military action
unless assures of a significant degree of strategic suprise. A
surprise missile and air strike on Taiwan most likely would damage
severely most of Taiwan's air bases, significantly degrading its
land-based air defenes, C4ISR systems, and ability to generate sorties
in the absense of Taiwan efforts to harden facilities and increase
redundancy. Concurrently, the PLAN also could attack major Taiwan
surface combatants with minimal warning. If successful, these attacks
might enable the PLA to protect a large cross-Strait sea and air fleet
and land troops in sufficient strength to achieve a foothold on the
island although it still lacks sufficient lift capability to sustain
amphibious operations."
So even with complete strategic surprise which enables China to
destroy Taiwan's air bases, army bases, headquarters and surface navy;
China's invasion might still fail, and even if it succeeds China
doesn't have the lift capability to support this invasion.
And that is without the US doing one single thing to stop it.
>Response time would be the key. Thanks to Chimpoleon, we're pretty involved
>in Iraq...
Really? How many US carrier battle groups are in Iraq at the
moment?
Johnny Bravo
LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
the reserves can be called up.
Johnny Bravo
Taiwan has four times as many 4th generation fighters as China
Even with complete strategic suprise the invasion might fail
Even if the invasion doesn't fail it cannot support those forces
Taiwan has enough SAM capability to counter China's 450 SRBMs
China seriously lacks the ability to project it's military to Taiwan
And that is without US involvement.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2005 10:15:09 -0700, "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >You Know Who wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> >> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> >HAHA. Bush illegally invaded iraq
> >>
> >> What law was broken?
> >
> > We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
> >treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
> >force of law.
>
> No law can violate the Constitution, not even a treaty. The
> Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, for any reason
> it deems necessary. There is absolutely no provision in the
> Constitituion for Congress to give away it's powers without changing
> the Constitution itself. No more than Bush can make a treaty with
> Togo declaring himself King for Life and outlawing the Democratic
> Party under pain of death.
Yes, this is a strange constitutional situation, but basically
the congress is bound by laws it passes on itself. Now, in
the case of much US law, the congress is careful to pass
laws which exempt itself. Labor laws are common in this
fashion. They often exempt the Executive branch as well.
This prevents the courts from being able to enforce laws
upon congress which would create some weird constitutional
conflicts. However, in the case of the UN treaty, they
didn't particularly do that.
>
> >Under the UN charter, we weren't suppose to
> >invade other countries without the permission of the UN
> >Security council. We didn't really have that.
>
> Iraq wasn't supposed to violate the ceasefire agreement more than
> FIVE THOUSAND times in a 10 year period either. From 1992 to 2002
> Iraq fired on planes over the no-fly zone an average of 10 times per
> week. No ceasefire and we were still at war, no new war necessary.
>
> You lose a war and insist on continued fighting, you have to be
> prepared to accept the consequences of your stupidity.
The problem is that the UN never sactioned the no fly zones.
We created them after the treaty was signed. The Iraqis (well
Sadam basically) never "agreed" to them. Their attacks were based
upon the no fly zone activity. Furthermore, at some point
the UN, with our concurrence, declared the first Iraqi war
"over", which didn't seem to have much significance except in
hind sight it basically made our no fly activities "illegal".
International law is a real mess and we have allowed ourselves
to get to this point without really meaning it. As such we
are open to criticism that we aren't doing what we said we'd
do, which basically is correct. Truth is though that I suspect
most of the folks that sign the UN Charter Agreement don't
really mean it. So we have a bunch of hypocritics accusing
each other of hypocricy.
Frank Pittel
: traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >Johnny Bravo wrote:
: >>
: >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:35:19 -0500, Server 13 <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >> >> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
: >> >> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
: >> >> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
: >> >
: >> > That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
: >>
: >> You don't need the army to stop a naval force from invading an
: >> island.
: >
: >IF a naval force is used...
: >
: >Paratroops?
: LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
: access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
: from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
: need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
: mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
: suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
: to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
: the reserves can be called up.
Let's also remember that planes dropping paratroops are fly low, slow and
can take no evasive action.
Demon Buddha
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A couple days ago it was rummy saying the same. The maniacs are
>>softening us up for another war and this will be the big one.
>>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/06/10/2003258664
>>Bush says US will defend Taiwan if China starts a war
>
>
> Bush is _such_ a fucking traitor to America.
Huh? Now, I dislike Bush greatly, but how does this make him a
traitor? If we have a treaty with Taiwan to come to their defense in
the event of an attack, we are bound by it. Yes, we could simply reneg
come the time, but given our already near-zero credibility before the
rest of the world, I'm not sure how doing so would be helpful. I'd be
more in favor of first finding a way to legally extricate ourselves from
the agreement. When it was made, China was a backwater shithole with no
prospects of ever emerging from the stone-age. Obviously a lot has
changed since then. Short of loosing nukes, there is no possibility of
winning a war against them. They would kick the living shit out of the
USA with both hands tied behind their backs. We'd be on their turf,
5000 miles from our own shores, fighting a 100 million + man army (and
I'm sure that would be rapidly expanded) under a culture that has no
compunction to send hundreds of thousands of men to certain death on a
whim. We wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. And
let us not forget that they are very ably advancing their launch vehicle
technology and possess warheads errily similar to our own beloved W88.
If we went to war with them, we'd almost be forced to nuke them early
on. If we waited for them to amass a large and effective fleet of
ICBMs, then all options short of running home with our tail between our
legs would be removed.
Better we find another way.
Demon Buddha
> LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
> access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
> from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
> need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
> mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
> suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
> to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
> the reserves can be called up.
Be that as it may, if China invaded Taiwan, it would be over in a
matter of a couple days' time. If it came to fisticuffs, I'd bet the
mainlanders would have zero compunction to level the entire civilization
on the island. I think that would be pretty screwed, but the capability
is well within their hands.
Demon Buddha
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> China won't be invading Taiwan unless their tanks can swim across on
>>their own.
>
>
> Extremely naive.
>
> China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
> before setting foot on it.
It's called "softening them up". :)
--
-Andy V.
Arbeit macht frei, cheeseburger, und koke!
-Adolph's cousin Johann "Mac" Burger-König
Demon Buddha
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:35:09 -0600
>>China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
>>before setting foot on it.
>
>
> Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
> blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
> than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
> US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
I'm not sure how large the Chinese navy is, but if they do the
blitzkrieg bop on Taiwan, their forces would be in place long before the
USA could respond, unless we planned to park the entire fleet offhsore
for what could be years on end.
In any event, I would not foresee the Chinese making any move that was
not very well calculated for victory. Unlike the USA, the Chinese seem
to have endless reserves of patience and as far as I can see, they will
wait for decades more if that is what they must do. I think Taiwan is
eventually going to be toast unless they come to some agreement.
Perhaps they may agree to become an "autonomous zone".
Chris Morton
> I'm not sure how large the Chinese navy is, but if they do the
>blitzkrieg bop on Taiwan, their forces would be in place long before the
>USA could respond, unless we planned to park the entire fleet offhsore
>for what could be years on end.
It's been done before....
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:35:09 -0600
>
>>>China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
>>>before setting foot on it.
>>
>>
>> Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
>> blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
>> than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
>> US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
>
> I'm not sure how large the Chinese navy is, but if they do the
>blitzkrieg bop on Taiwan, their forces would be in place long before the
>USA could respond, unless we planned to park the entire fleet offhsore
>for what could be years on end.
You don't invade an island against 170,000 soldiers on the drop of a
hat, given that China can move about 15,000 of them at once; that
gives the US plenty of time to respond given that a US carrier group
can easily move over 700 miles per day and we tend to keep one on
station in the China Sea area, right now the USS Nimitz is underway
to that area to take over the patrol zone.
On the other hand the US has about 40 submaries in the Pacific at
any one time and the Chinese have a very limited anti-submarine
capability. Either they move the invasion fleet at a crawl so the
electric subs can keep up, giving the US ample time to move surface
forces into the area, or they race in and suffer massive losses to the
transport ships to US subs making each successive trip with fewer and
fewer men and supplies. Even a handful of subs could cause absolute
havoc with a Chinese invasion attempt.
> In any event, I would not foresee the Chinese making any move that was
>not very well calculated for victory. Unlike the USA, the Chinese seem
>to have endless reserves of patience and as far as I can see, they will
>wait for decades more if that is what they must do. I think Taiwan is
>eventually going to be toast unless they come to some agreement.
>Perhaps they may agree to become an "autonomous zone".
China isn't the only country upgrading, Taiwan has nearly 225,000
active duty military members and more than 3 million reservists with a
very large amount of modern military equipment. An invasion would be
problematic without US involvement and impossible if the US
intervenes. The only way China could "win" would be to use nuclear
weapons and destroy anything on Taiwan that it would be worth fighting
them for. It's more than a little late for China to regain the face
they lost by letting Taiwan go in the first place.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>> LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
>> access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
>> from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
>> need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
>> mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
>> suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
>> to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
>> the reserves can be called up.
>
> Be that as it may, if China invaded Taiwan, it would be over in a
>matter of a couple days' time.
Yes, China would seriously get it's ass kicked. In two days China
could unload a grand total of about 30,000 men on Taiwan, where they
would be fighting at a 1 to 6 disadvantage and on a beach were Taiwan,
not China would also have the advantage of Terrain.
On the second day the US Carrier Battle group on patrol in the East
China Sea would have arrived and sunk the entire Chinese navy, leaving
the survivors of those 30,000 invaders without any effective supply.
The Taiwanese would have called up and armed all their reserves and
the remaining Chinese would be outnumbered more than 100 to 1.
>If it came to fisticuffs, I'd bet the
>mainlanders would have zero compunction to level the entire civilization
>on the island. I think that would be pretty screwed, but the capability
>is well within their hands.
If they are going to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan, why bother
invading them in the first place?
Johnny Bravo
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> > We are signatories to the UN Charter, which is considered a
>> >treaty. Treaties, under the constitution, have the full
>> >force of law.
>>
>> No law can violate the Constitution, not even a treaty. The
>> Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, for any reason
>> it deems necessary. There is absolutely no provision in the
>> Constitituion for Congress to give away it's powers without changing
>> the Constitution itself. No more than Bush can make a treaty with
>> Togo declaring himself King for Life and outlawing the Democratic
>> Party under pain of death.
>
> Yes, this is a strange constitutional situation, but basically
>the congress is bound by laws it passes on itself. Now, in
>the case of much US law, the congress is careful to pass
>laws which exempt itself. Labor laws are common in this
>fashion. They often exempt the Executive branch as well.
>This prevents the courts from being able to enforce laws
>upon congress which would create some weird constitutional
>conflicts. However, in the case of the UN treaty, they
>didn't particularly do that.
The Supreme Court has tossed out treaties before which violated the
Constitution. Congress has no authority to give up it's powers via
treaty so it retains the power to declare war no matter what it wrote
on a piece of paper. Congress has no power to make part of the
Constitution unconstitutional via any method other than an amendment.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
All true, except that it isn't clear congress gave up any
authority. All it did was to agree not to declare war except under
a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances aren't
unconstitutional. There is no requirement of any sort for congress
to either declare war, or not.
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:37:02 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:35:19 -0500, Server 13 <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
> >> >> clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
> >> >> Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
> >> >
> >> > That's what happens when you tie up 9 out of 10 battalions in a fake war.
> >>
> >> You don't need the army to stop a naval force from invading an
> >> island.
> >
> >IF a naval force is used...
> >
> >Paratroops?
>
> LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
> access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
> from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
> need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
> mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
> suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
> to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
> the reserves can be called up.
China's approach would be multi faceted, involving all means of attack
and invasion. Duh. And they are working on modernizations all around.
From
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf
Excerpts:
An amphibious operation would place great demands on the military and civilian
infrastructure. To ensure the success of such an operation, the PLA has
identified a need for comprehensive, focused support. Logistic support would
require providing sufficient transport assets for moving equipment and supplies
to the ports of embarkation, conducting the sea crossing, supplying adequate
ammunition and fuel to conduct operations, and repairing damaged equipment and
facilities.
Taipei’s virtual diplomatic isolation since the late 1970s has isolated it from
many global advances in military professionalism and technology. Its military
remains largely a ground force, with the Taiwan Army dominating the Taiwan Navy
and Air Force by an approximate 2:1:1 ratio, respectively. Conscripts serving for
less than 2 years fill most of the military’s 385,000 billets. Lack of professional
noncommissioned officers overburdens commissioned officers, and a “joint”
warfighting culture in which the individual services would complement each other
is still evolving.
Despite PLA emphasis on modernizing air, naval, and missile capabilities, the Taiwan
Army retains its historic focus on counterlanding operations and has major
shortcomings in training and reservist mobilization.
However, China’s force modernization, weaponry, pilot training, tactics, and command
and control are beginning to erode Taiwan’s qualitative edge.
Over the next several years, given current trends, China most likely will be able to
cause significant damage to all of Taiwan’s airfields and quickly degrade Taiwan’s
ground-based air defenses and associated command and control through a combination of
SRBMs, land-attack cruise missiles, special operations forces, and other assets.
PLA ground forces have a considerable numerical advantage over Taiwan’s Army and
Marine forces. Three group armies are based in Nanjing Military Region opposite
Taiwan, and several others most likely would be included as part of the primary attack
force in the event of an all-out invasion of the island. Airborne units, special
operations forces, and marine units most likely would support these group armies.
Despite its numerical advantage, China’s main ground forces have shortcomings in such
areas as sealift and logistics. However, China is steadily expanding its ability to
transport ground forces by air.
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:36:29 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:32:28 -0500, "CD" <SocialPr...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How in tha fuck could the US even begin a war with a real country like China
> >> >when it cant win a war in a 3rd world country like Iraq??
> >>
> >> China...real country, ROTFLMAO.
> >>
> >> They can take their 1960s airforce and their third world navy and
> >> shake their fists in impotent rage at the Taiwanese across the strait.
> >
> >You might want to peruse the annual reports on China's capabilities befire
> >believing that...
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf
>
> Taiwan has four times as many 4th generation fighters as China
> Even with complete strategic suprise the invasion might fail
> Even if the invasion doesn't fail it cannot support those forces
> Taiwan has enough SAM capability to counter China's 450 SRBMs
> China seriously lacks the ability to project it's military to Taiwan
>
> And that is without US involvement.
Which would take days to arrive... and that asssumes Taiwan's air
assets survive missile attack.
From the 2004 report
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf
However, China’s force modernization, weaponry, pilot training, tactics, and command
and control are beginning to erode Taiwan’s qualitative edge. The number of Chinese
fourth-generation fighters, principally Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft, is expected to move
closer to Taiwan’s. China will have improved situational awareness. Beijing’s SRBM
force also could be used to soften Taiwan’s air defenses and disrupt airbase operations,
supporting any air campaign designed to cripple the Taiwan Air Force and damage or
destroy Taiwan military facilities. Over the next several years, given current trends,
Rich Travsky
Under the radar. Thanks Piddle!
Rich Travsky
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:14:50 GMT, Demon Buddha <tan...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >
> >> LOL, Taiwan has an army of 170,000 on the island of Taiwan and
> >> access to 3.9 million reserve soldiers. Trying to take out an army
> >> from the air without access to tanks or heavy fighting vehicles you'll
> >> need at least a five or six to one advantage on the ground, not to
> >> mention adding in extra for losses taken in the drop as well as those
> >> suffered from air defense forces. China doesn't have the capability
> >> to airdrop over a million men at once to take over the island before
> >> the reserves can be called up.
> >
> > Be that as it may, if China invaded Taiwan, it would be over in a
> >matter of a couple days' time.
>
> Yes, China would seriously get it's ass kicked. In two days China
> could unload a grand total of about 30,000 men on Taiwan, where they
> would be fighting at a 1 to 6 disadvantage and on a beach were Taiwan,
> not China would also have the advantage of Terrain.
>
> On the second day the US Carrier Battle group on patrol in the East
> China Sea would have arrived and sunk the entire Chinese navy, leaving
> the survivors of those 30,000 invaders without any effective supply.
> The Taiwanese would have called up and armed all their reserves and
> the remaining Chinese would be outnumbered more than 100 to 1.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf
Antiaccess Strategy
China could consider a sea- denial strategy to hold at risk U.S. naval forces
approaching the Taiwan Strait. Deep-water naval mines, submarines, cruise
missiles, and even special forces could be employed to threaten a U.S. aircraft
carrier. This strategy’s tactical elements might include shallow and deep-water
mines, submarines, and surface combatants. Information operations assets could
attack U.S. C4ISR and logistic systems.
> >If it came to fisticuffs, I'd bet the
> >mainlanders would have zero compunction to level the entire civilization
> >on the island. I think that would be pretty screwed, but the capability
> >is well within their hands.
>
> If they are going to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan, why bother
> invading them in the first place?
EMPs.
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:35:09 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:11:08 -0500, Axe <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, we realize we CAN'T do anything to stop China from invading
> >> >anywhere.
> >>
> >> We certainly can. The disparity of naval forces is so large as to
> >> be no contest. The entire Chinese surface navy could easily be
> >> destroyed by 3 US Cruisers. If we send a carrier battle group down
> >> there we will be using the entire Chinese military for target
> >> practice.
> >>
> >> China won't be invading Taiwan unless their tanks can swim across on
> >> their own.
> >
> >Extremely naive.
> >
> >China has a substantial missile force and could do quite a job on Taiwan
> >before setting foot on it.
>
> Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
> blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
> than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
> US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
They could so at their leisure after all that.
> Even so, a substantial missle force can be countered, especially by
> a US surface group which are designed to counter that kind of threat.
Not by Taiwan.
Taiwan’s current ability to defend against ballistic missiles is
negligible, although it has committed to upgrading its defensive
capabilities.
And how do WE counter hundreds of missiles?
> >You might want to peruse
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf
>
> I have, apparently you haven't read it yet.
Odd, one thinks the same of you since you get the number of
armed forces wrong compared to the reports...
> "China likely would not be willing to initiate any military action
> unless assures of a significant degree of strategic suprise. A
> surprise missile and air strike on Taiwan most likely would damage
> severely most of Taiwan's air bases, significantly degrading its
> land-based air defenes, C4ISR systems, and ability to generate sorties
> in the absense of Taiwan efforts to harden facilities and increase
> redundancy. Concurrently, the PLAN also could attack major Taiwan
> surface combatants with minimal warning. If successful, these attacks
> might enable the PLA to protect a large cross-Strait sea and air fleet
> and land troops in sufficient strength to achieve a foothold on the
> island although it still lacks sufficient lift capability to sustain
> amphibious operations."
>
> So even with complete strategic surprise which enables China to
> destroy Taiwan's air bases, army bases, headquarters and surface navy;
> China's invasion might still fail, and even if it succeeds China
> doesn't have the lift capability to support this invasion.
>
> And that is without the US doing one single thing to stop it.
Kinda overlooking Taiwan gets destroyed no matter what, eh?
> >Response time would be the key. Thanks to Chimpoleon, we're pretty involved
> >in Iraq...
>
> Really? How many US carrier battle groups are in Iraq at the
> moment?
You're forgetting troops, support, supplies, recon assets, etc.
Johnny Bravo
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Antiaccess Strategy
> China could consider a sea- denial strategy to hold at risk U.S. naval forces
> approaching the Taiwan Strait.
China could also consider prayer as well.
>Deep-water naval mines,
Feel free to calculate how many mines it would take to block all the
ocean within 300 miles of Taiwan.
>submarines,
Most of China's submarine fleet is diesel/electric designs based on
a WW2 German design copied by the Russians.
> cruise missiles,
Which are more than adequately protected against. US naval aviation
could sink the entire Chinese navy without ever having the ships come
within range of Chinese land based cruise missiles.
>and even special forces could be employed to threaten a U.S. aircraft
> carrier.
Oh yeah, they are going to swim right up to the carrier and attack
it with Ninjas, oh, that's right, Ninjas are Japanese.
>This strategy’s tactical elements might include shallow and deep-water
> mines, submarines, and surface combatants.
China's surface combatants are sorely lacking in anti-air defenses.
>Information operations assets could
> attack U.S. C4ISR and logistic systems.
Logistic systems don't mean a whole lot when all the Chinese
transports can be sunk by a single alpha strike.
>> >If it came to fisticuffs, I'd bet the
>> >mainlanders would have zero compunction to level the entire civilization
>> >on the island. I think that would be pretty screwed, but the capability
>> >is well within their hands.
>>
>> If they are going to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan, why bother
>> invading them in the first place?
>
>EMPs.
You aren't going to neutralize 3.7 million ground troops with EMPs.
SaPeIsMa
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:42AFBFA8...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> Taiwan's current ability to defend against ballistic missiles is
> negligible, although it has committed to upgrading its defensive
> capabilities.
>
China has NO interest in dumping hundreds of ballistic missiles on Taiwan.
Destroyjng Taiwan would be a Phyrric victory for China. Sine after all the
whole purpose of taking over Taiwan is to re-integrate it into China and not
leave a burn cinder after the exercise
So China whose objective is to take and hold Taiwan is force to use a lot of
manpower in any attack.
That makes defending Taiwan a much easier task.
Johnny Bravo
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>> Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
>> blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
>> than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
>> US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
>
>They could so at their leisure after all that.
Only if the US stands by and does nothing.
>> Even so, a substantial missle force can be countered, especially by
>> a US surface group which are designed to counter that kind of threat.
>
>Not by Taiwan.
A US surface group isn't part of Taiwan.
> Taiwan’s current ability to defend against ballistic missiles is
> negligible, although it has committed to upgrading its defensive
> capabilities.
>
>And how do WE counter hundreds of missiles?
With hundreds of missiles of our own. A single Arleigh Burke class
cruiser is capable of carrying 360 surface to air missiles. As well
as jammers, chaff, flares, guns and autonomous close in weapons
systems.
And even with missile speeds similar to the Russian SS-N-22 at 1700
nautical miles per hour the Burke can engage targets and fire fast
enough to empty it's magazines before the missiles get to the ship.
Between a couple of Burkes or Ticos (which are standard in a carrier
battle group), the carrier's own combat air patrol and any destroyers
attached to the formation, a few hundred missiles are going to be
nothing to fear and the carrier group doesn't ever have to get close
enough to China for the Chinese to even get targeting information for
it's missiles assuming that the carrier even gets within range of land
based missiles from China. One of the key parts of carrier based
aviation is stand off distance from its targets. The carrier could be
300 miles from Taiwan and still sink every Chinese ship in the strait.
>> So even with complete strategic surprise which enables China to
>> destroy Taiwan's air bases, army bases, headquarters and surface navy;
>> China's invasion might still fail, and even if it succeeds China
>> doesn't have the lift capability to support this invasion.
>>
>> And that is without the US doing one single thing to stop it.
>
>Kinda overlooking Taiwan gets destroyed no matter what, eh?
In what way, unless China uses nukes on Taiwan the attack is going
to confined to a single invasion beach where China's invading force is
cut to ribbons.
>> >Response time would be the key. Thanks to Chimpoleon, we're pretty involved
>> >in Iraq...
>>
>> Really? How many US carrier battle groups are in Iraq at the
>> moment?
>
>You're forgetting troops, support, supplies, recon assets, etc.
We don't need troops or additional support to stop a Chinese
invasion of Taiwan. One single alpha strike will wreck the entire
Chinese ability to conduct and support an invasion and leave it's
surface fleet on the bottom of the strait.
As for recon, a carrier air wing is more than capable of doing it's
own recon.
Omega
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:SridnUrZ6aP...@giganews.com...
: In alt.politics.usa.republican Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:: On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:36:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
:: <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
:: >Advertising US President George W. Bush said again yesterday that the
:: >US would defend Taiwan if China invaded.
:
:: Of course you would rather the US just stand by and violate its
:: treaty obligations and discard its integrity whenever a big enough
:: country decides to invade and conquer one of our allies.
:
:: One of the things I'm eternally grateful for is that you'll never be
:: closer to making government policy than being a kook on usenet.
:
: The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would also like Bush to make it
: clear to china that we wouldn't do anything to stop them from invading
: Taiwan and that they could go ahead at any time.
There was a book published by the Chinese Army in 2000 called "Unrestricted
Warfare". It lays out how the Chinese are planning to go to war with the US,
over control of Japan, Taiwan, India and most of the far east, sometime between
2008 and 2012.
For those of you with AKO access, the book and a review of it are posted under
the "OPFOR & the COE" folder under the AKO Intel Reference Files KCC.
Analysts missed Chinese buildup
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 9, 2005
A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of
national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize
several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington
Times has learned.
The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials
and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military
developments, according to officials familiar with the report.
The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but
critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or dismissing
evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities.
The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become more
critical of China's military buildup.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the weekend that
China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its missile forces
despite facing no threats. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed
worries this week about China's expanding military capabilities.
Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
.China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
.The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of
the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
.Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was
missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the
Internet.
.Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground
missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
.China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S.
aircraft carrier battle groups.
.The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian submarines,
warships and fighter-bombers.
According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the word
"surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S. failures to
anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the Pentagon's
annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which was due out March 1 but
delayed by interagency disputes over its contents.
Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence collectors
for not gathering solid information on the Chinese military and for failing to
plant agents in the communist government.
Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to exonerate
analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government China specialists, who
for the past 10 years dismissed or played down intelligence showing that Beijing
was engaged in a major military buildup.
"This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in the
intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one official said,
adding that covering up the failure of intelligence analysts on China would
prevent a major reorganization of the system.
A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a "self-selected
group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on China for 10 years.
"This group's desire to have good relations with China has prevented them
from highlighting how little they know and suppressing occasional evidence that
China views the United States as its main enemy."
The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime intelligence analyst
on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte, the new director of
national intelligence, as his office's top intelligence analyst.
Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of U.S.
intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical report by the
presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen.
Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of analysts for
the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security Council staff
member for China during the Clinton administration and the U.S. intelligence
community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr. Suettinger is traveling outside
the country and could not be reached for comment, a spokesman said.
John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
Among those who took part in the study were former Defense Intelligence
Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was among those who in the past
had dismissed concerns about China's military in the past 10 years.
Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former Army
intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at the Pentagon
during the Clinton administration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
Rich Travsky
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:15:49 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > Antiaccess Strategy
> > China could consider a sea- denial strategy to hold at risk U.S. naval forces
> > approaching the Taiwan Strait.
>
> China could also consider prayer as well.
They wouldn't have to.
> >Deep-water naval mines,
>
> Feel free to calculate how many mines it would take to block all the
> ocean within 300 miles of Taiwan.
Wouldn't have to. Only the strategic approaches. US mine sweeping forces are
minimal.
Feel free to calculate the length of our supply lines...plus the extra support
needed because we're bogged down in Iraq.
> >submarines,
>
> Most of China's submarine fleet is diesel/electric designs based on
> a WW2 German design copied by the Russians.
Sigh. From the 2004 report
Beijing has expressed interest in or is currently negotiating the purchase
of additional Russian weapon systems and military technology, to include
additional KILO submarines, antisubmarine helicopters, and various aircraft
engines.
> > cruise missiles,
>
> Which are more than adequately protected against. US naval aviation
Not hardly.
> could sink the entire Chinese navy without ever having the ships come
> within range of Chinese land based cruise missiles.
Ibidem
China is expanding and upgrading its submarine fleet with the purchase of four Russian
KILO Class attack submarines (SSNs). The KILO is a major improvement for the PLAN
over its noisy ROMEO Class submarines. In addition, the KILO may be armed with
wake-homing torpedoes, which are very difficult to detect.
China has launched the lead hull of its next-generation SSN, which is expected to
enter service by 2005, with additional units to follow.
> >and even special forces could be employed to threaten a U.S. aircraft
> > carrier.
>
> Oh yeah, they are going to swim right up to the carrier and attack
> it with Ninjas, oh, that's right, Ninjas are Japanese.
How many ninjas use cruise missiles?
> >This strategy’s tactical elements might include shallow and deep-water
> > mines, submarines, and surface combatants.
>
> China's surface combatants are sorely lacking in anti-air defenses.
Ibidem
Modernization is occurring in all services.
Significant developments over the past few years to improve China’s integrated air
defense system include:
· Purchase of advanced Russian SAMs, such as the SA-10 and SA-20, to protect
against a perceived cruise missile threat and to extend air defense coverage against
conventional aircraft.
· Development of an antiradiation SAM, most likely intended to target AWACS
aircraft and standoff jamming platforms.
· Purchase of advanced tactical SAMs for short-range point defense and protection
of ground forces, to include the SA-15 from Russia.
· Development of the LY-60 tactical SAM system for ships and several shoulderfired
SAM systems, such as the QW-1, QW-2, and FN-6, to replace the domestic HN-5.
· Development of a land-based version of the long-range HQ-9, to precede a naval
version, designed to be a long-range counter to high-performance aircraft, cruise
missiles, ASMs, and tactical ballistic missiles.
> >Information operations assets could
> > attack U.S. C4ISR and logistic systems.
>
> Logistic systems don't mean a whole lot when all the Chinese
> transports can be sunk by a single alpha strike.
Wow, are you naive.
> >> >If it came to fisticuffs, I'd bet the
> >> >mainlanders would have zero compunction to level the entire civilization
> >> >on the island. I think that would be pretty screwed, but the capability
> >> >is well within their hands.
> >>
> >> If they are going to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan, why bother
> >> invading them in the first place?
> >
> >EMPs.
>
> You aren't going to neutralize 3.7 million ground troops with EMPs.
If they can't communicate with each other they might as well be.
Your numbers change with each post. Next time it'll be 4.68730 million...
Ibidem
Taipei’s virtual diplomatic isolation since the late 1970s has isolated it from
many global advances in military professionalism and technology. Its military
remains largely a ground force, with the Taiwan Army dominating the Taiwan Navy
and Air Force by an approximate 2:1:1 ratio, respectively. Conscripts serving for
less than 2 years fill most of the military’s 385,000 billets. Lack of professional
noncommissioned officers overburdens commissioned officers, and a “joint”
warfighting culture in which the individual services would complement each other
is still evolving.
RT
Rich Travsky
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:42:00 -0600, Rich Travsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that even if Taiwan was
> >> blown down to a bare slab of rock they still couldn't invade with more
> >> than a handful of swimming men unloaded by a diesel submarine if the
> >> US navy decides to prevent this from happening.
> >
> >They could so at their leisure after all that.
>
> Only if the US stands by and does nothing.
Thanks to being bogged down in Iraq, that is harder to do.
> >> Even so, a substantial missle force can be countered, especially by
> >> a US surface group which are designed to counter that kind of threat.
> >
> >Not by Taiwan.
>
> A US surface group isn't part of Taiwan.
A US surface group can't counter hundreds of missiles. More likely
they'd be targets...
> > Taiwan’s current ability to defend against ballistic missiles is
> > negligible, although it has committed to upgrading its defensive
> > capabilities.
> >
> >And how do WE counter hundreds of missiles?
>
> With hundreds of missiles of our own. A single Arleigh Burke class
> cruiser is capable of carrying 360 surface to air missiles. As well
> as jammers, chaff, flares, guns and autonomous close in weapons
> systems.
>
> And even with missile speeds similar to the Russian SS-N-22 at 1700
> nautical miles per hour the Burke can engage targets and fire fast
> enough to empty it's magazines before the missiles get to the ship.
>
> Between a couple of Burkes or Ticos (which are standard in a carrier
> battle group), the carrier's own combat air patrol and any destroyers
> attached to the formation, a few hundred missiles are going to be
> nothing to fear and the carrier group doesn't ever have to get close
> enough to China for the Chinese to even get targeting information for
> it's missiles assuming that the carrier even gets within range of land
> based missiles from China. One of the key parts of carrier based
> aviation is stand off distance from its targets. The carrier could be
> 300 miles from Taiwan and still sink every Chinese ship in the strait.
Sigh. I asked how do we COUNTER those missiles...
> >> So even with complete strategic surprise which enables China to
> >> destroy Taiwan's air bases, army bases, headquarters and surface navy;
> >> China's invasion might still fail, and even if it succeeds China
> >> doesn't have the lift capability to support this invasion.
> >>
> >> And that is without the US doing one single thing to stop it.
> >
> >Kinda overlooking Taiwan gets destroyed no matter what, eh?
>
> In what way, unless China uses nukes on Taiwan the attack is going
Population centers, ports, and military bases.
> to confined to a single invasion beach where China's invading force is
> cut to ribbons.
Cut by what?
> >> >Response time would be the key. Thanks to Chimpoleon, we're pretty involved
> >> >in Iraq...
> >>
> >> Really? How many US carrier battle groups are in Iraq at the
> >> moment?
> >
> >You're forgetting troops, support, supplies, recon assets, etc.
>
> We don't need troops or additional support to stop a Chinese
> invasion of Taiwan. One single alpha strike will wreck the entire
> Chinese ability to conduct and support an invasion and leave it's
> surface fleet on the bottom of the strait.
>
> As for recon, a carrier air wing is more than capable of doing it's
> own recon.
Your naivite knows no bounds.
RT
Johnny Bravo
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Sigh. I asked how do we COUNTER those missiles...
What part of "surface to air missile" was unclear to you?
When you can actually comprehend what you are reading instead of
asking questions you just read the answer to, I'll get back to you.
Johnny Bravo
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Feel free to calculate the length of our supply lines...plus the extra support
>needed because we're bogged down in Iraq.
You keep mentioning being bogged down in Iraq. Take all the screens
you need to demonstrate how a ground war in Iraq prevents a US carrier
group attached to the Pacific fleet from sinking the entire Chinese
invasion force.
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:14:47 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Feel free to calculate the length of our supply lines...plus the extra support
> >needed because we're bogged down in Iraq.
>
> You keep mentioning being bogged down in Iraq. Take all the screens
> you need to demonstrate how a ground war in Iraq prevents a US carrier
> group attached to the Pacific fleet from sinking the entire Chinese
> invasion force.
Sigh. Rightards.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/dailyUpdate.html
posted May 4, 2005, updated 12:38 p.m.
Could the US military handle another war?
Media connect Myers' report about strain on US military with lag in recruitment.
Media reports in the US and around the world have taken note of a new classified
report from the top US military adviser, which indicates that the US military's
current commitments overseas may prevent it from adequately fighting future
conflicts.
BBC writes that Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
"has warned that ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could
limit the ability of the US to fight another war."
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4511571.stm
Wednesday, 4 May, 2005, 04:57 GMT 05:57 UK
The top US general, Richard Myers, has warned that ongoing military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan could limit the ability of the US to fight another war.
Current commitments can be met, but a new conflict could take longer and cause
more casualties, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
He expressed his views in a classified report to Congress, parts of which have
been leaked to the media.
...
And to add to the context:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050520-121235-8910r.htm
...
Pentagon force structure planners are still working on where to "forward
deploy" a second aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific.
As part of the global military force posture review, the Pentagon has decided
it needs a second carrier group closer to hot spots such as the Taiwan Strait
and North Korea.
The United States has the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group based in Yokosuka,
Japan, near Tokyo.
Defense officials say the choices for deploying the second carrier are Honolulu
and the western Pacific island of Guam.
Pentagon officials say Hawaii is a choice because it already has a
well-developed port and other infrastructure. It also is home to the headquarters
of the U.S. Pacific Command.
Guam, however, is more strategically located and would allow U.S. power to reach
Asia more quickly, a key element of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's goal
for military force restructuring.
Defense officials say unsettling conflict scenarios related to China's rapid
military buildup — primarily Beijing's new warships, submarines and aircraft
designed specifically to attack U.S. warships — are lending support to deploying
the carrier at Guam, where up to eight U.S. attack submarines also are being
deployed.
On the other hand, China's development and purchase of precision strike cruise
and ballistic missiles have some strategists in the Pentagon saying that a second
carrier should be stationed safely at Honolulu.
...
Well well...those reports to congress are from 2003 and 2004 - look how far
the ChiComs have progressed - enough that a second group is needed, and the ChiCom
abilities are such that it would be safer in - Hawaii. Gee, their abilities
might be the reason why Duhbya won't take in that Chinese defector...
RT
Johnny Bravo
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>And to add to the context:
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050520-121235-8910r.htm
> ...
> Pentagon force structure planners are still working on where to "forward
> deploy" a second aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific.
One is more than enough, thanks for proving my point.
Happy to have helped, have a nice day.
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:34:30 -0600, Rich Travsky <"
> traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >And to add to the context:
> >
> > http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050520-121235-8910r.htm
> > ...
> > Pentagon force structure planners are still working on where to "forward
> > deploy" a second aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific.
>
> One is more than enough, thanks for proving my point.
>
> Happy to have helped, have a nice day.
Care to address WHY they need a second group? *I* did. Can't help but notice
you ran from that.
Here it is again, from the washtimes link:
Defense officials say unsettling conflict scenarios related to China's rapid
military buildup — primarily Beijing's new warships, submarines and aircraft
designed specifically to attack U.S. warships — are lending support to deploying
the carrier at Guam, where up to eight U.S. attack submarines also are being
deployed.
On the other hand, China's development and purchase of precision strike cruise
and ballistic missiles have some strategists in the Pentagon saying that a second
carrier should be stationed safely at Honolulu.
Gee, doesn't look like one CG can do it anymore, eh? Glad to have helped,
have a nice day!
RT
Rich Travsky
And this just in!
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050621-102521-5027r.htm
China has successfully flight-tested a submarine-launched missile that U.S.
officials say marks a major advance in Beijing's long-range nuclear program.
...
The missile was launched from a Chinese submarine near the port of Qingdao and
was tracked to a desert impact point in western China several thousand miles
away, the officials said.
The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center reported that the JL-2 "will,
for the first time, allow Chinese [missile submarines] to target portions of
the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast."
The JL-2 is estimated to have a range of up to 6,000 miles, enough to hit
targets in the United States.
A defense official said the missile test was a major step forward in China's
strategic nuclear missile program and shows an improved capability to produce
and launch submarine-launched missiles. "It was a successful test," this
official said.
...
In December, however, China launched the first of a new class of ballistic
missile submarines known as the Type 094.
...