Replies

Kevmo: "It is time to call you out on being a first class @$$#0/e."

That's you, pal.

Kevmo: "***That has been one of the starting points of my criticism of US policy.
It DEPENDS upon USA willingness to pour blood for an ally.
But we have lost stomach for fighting for freedom in the past, such as in Korea, Vietnam, and various other withdrawals in the past."

All peace, without exception, in the world depends on American treaties, promises and willingness to fulfill our promises to defend our allies from naked aggression.
Remove those treaties, promises and willingness to defend our allies and the world reverts to chaos, war and domination by its most bad-*ssed military powers.

As for US withdrawal from Korea, you might wish to talk to people in Seoul, South Korea about that.
They will be most surprised to learn Americans have gone.

South Vietnam is a different story -- there Democrats in Congress not only forced US troops out, but also, after nearly 20 years (1955 - 1975), cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese government.
It was similar to the situation in Afghanistan today -- we can only help those guys so much, after that, they're on their own, if they won't defend themselves, we have to let them sink or swim.

As for "other withdrawals", you refer perhaps to our withdrawal from Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain... well, here's a recent map of US military bases worldwide:

Kevmo: "So we AGREE on this aspect of US unwillingness to defend allies [especially when those allies are hardly even willing to fight for themselves]."

Pres. Trump was big on pushing our allies to contribute more to their own defenses, and was more successful at that than any other recent president.
Trump also wanted to withdraw from countries like Afghanistan which seem unwilling (after 20 years!!) or unable to defend themselves.
Enough is enough.

Kevmo: "But you turn this around into incredible fkkking ugliness.
You try to make it look like the US luzing military assets in a Taiwan conflict would be like when OUR OWN FRIKKING territory was sneak-attacked.
You are incredibly dense, caused by your @$$#0/e inclination to ignore some obvious points just so you can cause a rift."

The US does indeed have a long-term legal obligation to help defend Taiwan -- not the same as, say, Japan or Korea, but also not "nothing".
Here is a map of US defense treaty obligations, notice it includes Taiwan:

The obvious point you ignore is our historical commitment to Taiwan, you'd like to pretend it never happened and we don't care now what becomes of Taiwanese.

By the way, what is this "cause a rift" talk?
You're the one babbling insanely, so any "rift" is coming from you, pal.

Kevmo: "STFU"

STFU

All peace, without exception, in the world depends on American treaties,
***Bullshiite. Greenland is peaceful because they mind their own bizness. Switzerland and New Zealand are peaceful without any input from American treaties.

promises and willingness to fulfill our promises to defend our allies from naked aggression.
***You’re starting to go into word salad here. I can tell that it means you have lost the argument.

Remove those treaties, promises and willingness to defend our allies
***Word salad

and the world reverts to chaos, war and domination by its most bad-*ssed military powers.
***while pointing out some obvious aspects [POTO] because ya got nowhere else to go.

As for US withdrawal from Korea, you might wish to talk to people in Seoul, South Korea about that.
***Sure, right after I talk to the folks in North Korea.

They will be most surprised to learn Americans have gone.
***The Norks won’t be so surprised.

South Vietnam is a different story — there Democrats in Congress not only forced US troops out, but also, after nearly 20 years (1955 - 1975), cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese government.
***You are so stupid not to be able to see the irony of your own remarks. Our policy DEPENDS upon politician willingness to defend, and our politicians are not willing to defend. But you jump up & down and make a big childish stink about how any attack on our carriers engaging in an act of war over an internal province dispute on Chinese soil would be tantamount to Pearl frikken Harbor.

It was similar to the situation in Afghanistan today — we can only help those guys so much, after that, they’re on their own,
***You make my points FOR me. That is how I know I have won the argument. Just replace Afghanistan with Taiwan... my point is made.

if they won’t defend themselves, we have to let them sink or swim.
***which is what I’ve been saying about Taiwan, @$$#0/e.

As for “other withdrawals”, you refer perhaps to our withdrawal from Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain... well, here’s a recent map of US military bases worldwide:
***Your wonderful politician brigade that you have SO much CONFIDENCE in when it comes to defending our enemies, well... those guys are retreating ACROSS THE WORLD. But don’t worry, when we luze 200k men and 5 aircraft carriers over an ally who hasn’t even declared independence yet... we will all rally around THEIR flag and go whoopdedoo. You are completely lost.
Article as example:
America’s ‘Great Retreat’ is well underway The US is rapidly lowering its military profile and backing away from commitments to allies in the Middle East and Asia
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3980258/posts

Kevmo: “So we AGREE on this aspect of US unwillingness to defend allies [especially when those allies are hardly even willing to fight for themselves].”

Pres. Trump was big on
***Notice how you just blithely ignore the point I made and start talking about sumthin else. You really are a brojerk.

pushing our allies to contribute more to their own defenses, a
***And did Taiwan declare independence as a result? Nope. But they sure are willing to spill American blood over their internal disputes.

and was more successful at that than any other recent president.
***That and a bowl of cherries might help you to evade further and we can all pretend you somehow made your original point. You’re obfuscating.

Trump also wanted to withdraw from countries like Afghanistan which seem unwilling (after 20 years!!) or unable to defend themselves.
***And yet, even now , you can’t seem to apply this lesson to Taiwan, acting as if luzing our carriers over this ungrateful ally would be tantamount to Pearl Harbor.

Enough is enough.
***that is MY point, not YOUR point. You’re the one pushing to spill American blood over an ally who never declared independence.

Kevmo: “But you turn this around into incredible fkkking ugliness.
You try to make it look like the US luzing military assets in a Taiwan conflict would be like when OUR OWN FRIKKING territory was sneak-attacked.
You are incredibly dense, caused by your @$$#0/e inclination to ignore some obvious points just so you can cause a rift.”

The US does indeed have a long-term legal obligation to help defend Taiwan
***You go ahead and depend on those politicians, sparky. And when we luze tens of thousands of men, we’ll watch you jump up and down to rally around the flag. It is people like you that should be sent in FIRST.

— not the same as, say, Japan or Korea, but also not “nothing”.
***You’re trying to introduce other sets of elements in a Red Herring strategy, a violation of Occham’s Razor. Yet another way to tell that you have lost the argument.

Here is a map of US defense treaty obligations, notice it includes Taiwan:
***Notice how you keep adding these bullshiite elements. Now you’re engaging a circular argument fallacy, trying to argue the point I’ve been making all along. Best of luck relying on the US political leadership for doing the right thing for our allies.

The obvious point you ignore is our historical commitment to Taiwan,
***Frack off. I do NOT ignore this. YOU ignore the stuff I have been saying. We have a historical commitment to FORMOSA, from the time Chang Kai Shek moved his luzing forces onto that island and decided they were the rightful rulers of Taiwan AND China. How is THAT ignoring the historical commitment we have made to our ally?

you’d like to pretend it never happened and we don’t care now what becomes of Taiwanese.
***Again, frack off. YOU ignored my analysis that about 1/3 of the people in Taiwan are Taiwanese. About 1/3 are soyboys, and about 1/3 are ethnic chinese, no more than half of whom are ready to take up arms against the Taiwanese in a 5th column. YOU IGNORE THIS. So frack off.

By the way, what is this “cause a rift” talk?
***You caused a rift by being such an @$$#0/e. Now you’re trying circular reasoning, obfuscation, and other classic fallacies. You are lost.

You’re the one babbling insanely, so any “rift” is coming from you, pal.
***Hold up a mirror, pal. Try to get rid of those logical fallacies you keep using. Take a critical thinking class. Take a writing class. Take a morals class. Then get back to us and we can help clean up the rest of yfour bullshiite.