Posted on 10/22/2009 9:53:36 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
I believe we should have a military that is capable of kicking any two asses on Earth, at once. I just think Obama is making sure we don’t.
Our Boy Scouts can do that. we just blow stuff up for show. lol
Joke for you
Why doesn’t Texas fall into the Gulf of Mexico?
Because Oklahoma sucks.
I am Tahlequah and still think that joke is funny
I agree with the fact that China cannot field a bluewater navy or heavy lift support to a far away place, but Taiwan is just off their coast and virtually all of their military prep and upgrades go to assets that involve subjugating Taiwan. I don’t doubt we could hurt them, bad. I think we could take Taiwan if we wanted to. I just don’t think the American people will stomach the losses necessary to do it. Even with a Republican President. With zer0, he’d probably surrender on day one. They are getting stronger and we aren’t.
I understand what you are saying.
Still 1200 miles is a long way by boat or plane.
Loads of logistics and lots of fuel
think of the distance this way. San Francisco to Midland, over water.
A long, arduos and difficult trip.
unless you are on cruise ship with plenty of liquor and a few ladies.
From China to Taiwan? 1200 miles?
The coast of China to Taiwan is about 100 miles.
oops. I am at a disadvantage on my cell
Let me get back to in little while when I am on my computer.
bigger screen and keyboard
I have the same problem with mine.
You assume that an Obama administration will go to war to defend Taiwan (treaty or no treaty).
Yes, we have the physical ability to devastate China. Do we have the WILL?
Well I have to admit to you and the other posters that I was making the case that our capabilities, for a variety of very qualified reasons, is incredible.
In fact, it really is just stupid to go up against the USA unless you have a political strategy.
In terms of winning the one key factor in all confrontations is “The will to win”.
There is a saying “The early bird always gets the worm. But will take a brutal beating and go home hungry when confronted by the hungry bird”.
The message being, if you are hungry enough, you will beat sleep walkers and people of casual skill.
Why? You are focused on a goal and committed to achieving it, no matter what.
The key is desire to win. Think Rocky.
Obama is disjointed, discombobulated, panty waist. He continues to extol his virtue of not winning. That is, winning is not the goal, when he disusses Afghanistan.
This is an important “tell” and exposes America for it’s lack of a leader who has no desire to win. The reasons don’t matter, he is not a person that want to win but, desires to exist and give flowery speeches that make him feel good.
So you and the other posters are correct. He is not capable of winning as it is not a core requirement for him in any competitive engagement.
Except when he is climbing his personal corporate ladder.
The purpose of the military is to be an effective tool that your government can use to accomplish its political objectives, to enforce its will upon an opposing entity. I think China is not going to try going toe-to-toe against us in a conventional military sense. They have other options they can take to accomplish their political objectives.
One option that has concerned me for a while is the level of corruption in our political establishment. Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop something that can match our F-22, when by spending a tiny fraction of that in "contributions" they can induce our politicians to kill our own program? Do you doubt that a working majority of our congress can be bought for a few billions of dollars?
Who is Diane Feinstein?
LoL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.