East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

[Skinny Shooter]

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

Now where would an idea like that come from?

"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.

"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.

As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.

On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.

During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections.

"I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.

[GoodOlBoy]

I will tell you where that idea came from. All the screaming that we have to leave irag because we have lost 2000 people. Now every bugger in the world thinks we will cave to the preassure.

GoodOlBoy

[fabsroman]

The Middle East is a tough war because China is watching. If China didn't have nukes, I would say we should just take over the Middle East, make it the 51st state, and be done with our oil problems and middle east problems. While we are at it, I'd take over Israel too. Enough of all the trouble we have had out of the Middle East for the last century.

Of course, China would be pissed, but if they didn't have nukes and we had all the oil, I'd tell China where to go.

What really kills me is that we Americans have been strengthening the Chinese economy with our purchases of goods made in China. My wife, before we were married, bought a Korean car and she and her side of the family are just as much, if not more, patriotic than my family. I just don't think we pay attention to the little details that might effect us in the long run. We look at what is the cheapest and buy it, but at that moment we aren't the least worried about China invading us.

This country has a bunch of issues, but I believe the Chinese threat and the threat of illegal immigration or two of the biggest. The import/export problem might come next because if we started buying some of our own products we might have more jobs in the US and a better economy.

[skeet]

Personally I really don't believe we can win a war with China either...but there are many reasons why. There is no Border security here and the Chinese are coming to this country and Canada at unbelievable rates. That would be big trouble for us at home in the case of a war with the Chinese...Secondly..there is speculation that the Chinese have ties politically with some of the Fundamentalist Islamic countries...or at least some of the fundamentalist groups. Having the Arabs involved here doing terrorist deeds would also hurt. This mostly is a problem of immigration and illegal entries into our country. Thirdly..the Chinese have more than 2 million men in it's standing army. Probably more and the ability to gather as many as they would need. Remember Korea. They attacked in waves at times without weapons..picking up the ones dropped by dead and wounded comrades. A low tech war against the Chinese would be almost impossible...and that is what the Chinese would probably do...as the Japanese did prior to WWII....invade and take over as many countries as possible. They can be as ruthless as the Japanese were. Probably worse. Also the Chinese are now building a Blue water Navy with the money garnered form the US. Doesn't bode well for us.. 4th and probably the hardest to deal with is the lack of resolve of the average American. Before the 2nd World War..most americans wanted to remain neutral... and I still believe we were drug into that war kicking and screaming because of some...shall I say ...errors of judgement by our leaders.. After 911 we heard people from all walks of life supporting the war on terror. Not now, though. War is a nasty thing. Ask Rocky...and others on this board. The fact is..people get killed and maimed in war. The soccer moms and others in this country will give up everything to be able to live their lives without strife. They'll even give up their liberties because they don't think the liberties we have are worth even one life. Especially their kids lives. They don't get the fact that freedom really isn't free. And as Fabs said. Most favored nation status to a communist nation is sheer stupidity. We generate the income they need to fight against liberty across the world. And they do. We really need to keep a much better eye on what the chinese do in the world...with the moneyt obtained from sales of junk to the American people:confused:

Rant over...!!!!

[ringo]

Canada is allowing 350,000 Chinese immigrants per year, within 10 years there will be 3.5 million in Canada alone! How many will be sympathetic to Red China? I foresee problems with broken dreams and false expectation, which will result in racism, terrorism and subversion against Canada, and a spillover of anger which may be directed against the USA.

[gumpokc]

If it came down to it, without nukes being used by either side, it would be a logn fight, but no different than Desert storm was, simply longer since there would be more targets.

China has huge manpower, and fair technology, butit6 does not have the ability to supply that tech to all of it's troop.
This means you have a small elite force with good tech, and a huge amount of cannon fodder (flashbacks to desert storm again anyone?)

In aisa, china would be dominate, until/unless we could get a decent staging area, and a good supply route, without that we'd lose to them in ground warfare.

in the air, sea, or anyplace we had good staging/supply, it'd be a shooting gallery, poop them up and knock them down.

china brags about it's billon man army, hell it can't even feed it's population, how's it going to feed an army of that size, with no supply structure, on the move through hostile territory?

within a fair distance of it's home territory, china is a very large threat, outside that range, it's a blustering blowhard, very much like it's cousin N. Korea.


If it came to nukes, they'd launch first, we'd launch in retaliation prior to theirs landing, we'd be hurt, but china would cease to exist.

they might be stupid blowhards, but i don't think they are stupid enough to to commit multi-billon number suicide.

[TreeDoc]

The way we're going, there will be a time where Chinese is the primary language in this country. I hope not while I'm still kickin' but who knows. It won't be by war....it will be done on the inside.

While the Chinese Empire rules our soil there will be this little legacy in the annals of their history....Bill Clinton will get an honorable mention as to how he made it possible for the Chinese to garner the data and technology that set them on their way to world domination.


Hillary is great in 2008!!!

Go Hillary!!!

[jon lynn]

Okay guys, remember this seniero?: I remember reading this while waiting in northern Saudi, I don't remember the person who wrote it, nor his exact words, but what I do remember was like this.

TIME, Dec. 1990: As the US and it's coliation partners prepare for the imminent invasion of Kuwait, to free the country from Iraqi occupation, the Pentagon is preparing for the possiable oncoming slaughter.

The fighter jets will fill the skies, causing literal block outs of the Suns light at times(I specifficaly remember that quote). The use of chemical weapons will render some coliation units useless, with casulity expections to run in to the tens of thousands for the US and Allied forces, within the first few months of a possiable year long battle(this too).

The threat of Israel to intervine may cause some Arib Nations to withdraw from the Allied coliation...............................blah-blah-blah, yak-yak-yak.

Remember Vietnam? Yes you do, we assured victory over the communist forces, and claimed the South Vietnamese Army was capable to carry on without the US.

Israel couldn't stop the Arabs from overruning the state, even with US support.

All these 'EXPERTS' and analist usually never actually served in high positions (ie Corps levil or higher), and some never even in the military. When I watch some shows, where 'military analyst' were so wrong on their basic weapons knowledge, it literally made me laugh.

During a CNN International story, during the Ruwanda and Burundi war, they showed a spent 'US Stinger' antiaircraft round. Well it was a SA-6. I could go on and on, so I will:D

Panama invasion, live footage from the reporter on the ground, with the EXPERT (some clown at NBC) telling Bryant Gumball, "You see those Hueys?" Well they were all UH-60's (AKA Blakhawks).

We here at Huntchat, could review and analyze, and give a better acrssment that those high paied BOZO's around the world, who advise our allies, and a few weenies in the US, who feed their high priced tripe to our elected officals (not so dangerious, we have the JCS to set it straight), and then the so called EXPERTS who yak on endlessly (kinda like me now), about all they think they know about our forces, and scareing the population with facts that work in theory, not in real life applications. Remember in THEORY communisum works, but in real life it is just like the old monarch system.

Could we beat China? Who knows, let them slip up, we will either deal with it and kick the crap outta them, or we may eat humble pie. Until we know the reaction of the grunt on the ground, for both sides this is all (as usuall) yak-yak-yak..................Jon

[Skinny Shooter]

Good thoughts guys. My main purpose of posting this thread was to illustrate just how well our media and Congress is knocking down GW, our troops and the US with the war in Iraq. Not really to spotlight the China threat.
They (media) would have the world believe that under the GW "regime" that we are the terrorists.
The double standard and hypocrisy of those in Congress who pounded the pulpit on many occassions about the threat of Saddam and who now are ranting about the lies that GW used to get us in to this "illegal" war really burns me.

It's bad enough that the enemy feeds off that drivel but now our "Allies " are in doubt of our resolve.

If you don't support President Bush in this war, you don't support our troops.
Period!
There's no having it both ways on this issue because both are linked together.
There's a time to disagree with policy and there's a time to circle the wagons. Except our wagon train has split 6 ways this side of Sunday...
The enemy doesn't understand our system of dissent and interprets that to be a sign of weakness and indecision.
Why its difficult to understand that relentless and reckless attacks on our President will result in a more determined enemy and a higher US body count is beyond me.
Free speech comes with responsibility and the Cindy Sheehans of the world will only get more of our troops killed. She should hold her tongue out of respect for the "troops" that she holds so dear so that more of them come home alive.

And you have a Happy Thanksgiving.
God bless our Troops and God Bless America!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/xm15e2/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawl.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/xm15e2/powmia.gif

Keep yer powder dry!

Allen

[fabsroman]

Skinny,

I agree whole heartedly with your last post.

What I do find a little hard to understand is the phrase "illegal war". Are there actually laws out there that say when a war is legal and when it isn't? I would be in shock to find that there is an actual standard as to when a country can go to war and when it cannot.

[denton]

Could the US conquer and occupy China? Probably not. It's too big, and too diverse. As a nation, we are much more "together" than they are. Over the centuries, most anybody who has tried to conquer China has ended up being assimilated, and eating with chopsticks.

Could we cripple their military, and render them unable to effectively fight? You bet. They could still pose a threat to anyplace they could march to, but not beyond that.

So, if you define "beat" as rendering them unable to effectively harm us very much, it's a no-brainer: We could. If you define "beat" as to overthrow their government and occupy their countryy, I doubt it very much.

The "2,000 casualty" argument is ridiculous. In WWII, a loss of 2,000 men in one day would make the newspapers. How many casualties we will tolerate depends a lot on what we are fighting for.

[jon lynn]

I personally think Iraq was a good idea gone bad, we should have rolled in in 1990 and stayed then. My biggest worry is MEXICO! Bush is awful quiet when things come up about closing off the border.

Read about the marijuina heist that went very wrong and tell me I am wrong. And how many hundreds come over to the US illegally every day? Build walls and check points you will create jobs to build it and man them.

We can't stop Mexicans, and God knows who else just trapes over the border. We should have resolved this years ago, but how can the Army stop insurgents/terrorist/Alqueda from crossing a Iraqs border, when GW wont protect OUR OWN border. You must admit he is very very easy with Mr Foxx, and Mexico.

But Skinny old buddy we don't see eye to eye on this (but that is the beauty of this site! Nobody takes it personally..........I HOPE!)

If you don't support President Bush in this war, you don't support our troops.


Sorry guys but I don't agree. I think Bush is a poor excisue for a President, (FYI I am no Klinton fan either). But being a veteran my self who IS currently processing to get back in the military after 14 years(although here in Germany I can only go reserve-for now), I can say the Iraq situation was ill planned.

But any way my point is I do support our troops, they are doing their jobs as best they can, and they always will. They are not in a 'I quit' situation, like the cheese ball reporters who do not make the solders lives any easier. Or like the polititions who rule them for four years a stretch or more.

I really have little to no faith what so ever in political professionals Republican/Democrat/And that funny little guy with the ears, reguardless of party or where they come from, NO politition has the voters ideals at heart, just their walletts. The last poor president (and I feel last honest) was Linclon.

I fantasize about starting the Hunters Party. No professional politics, just people who can resolve our disagreements to HELP Americans without having to have millions of dollars to get elected. One term only, after his/her turn they go back to doing what they do best, chat here, and hunt every free minute they have.:D

But I am happy to be an American, where we CAN complain and not got to some Mexican hidden jail (where I would probably just escape and sneak over the border to Texas.................wait!).

BUT, lastly, remember I was skittish about the war from the start, I posted my doubts well before the death toll was 500. I dont care about the politics, my doubts did not come AFTER reporters brought up mox-nix stories and investigations, and worthless UN reports.

[fabsroman]

What I find is that it is so easy to criticize when we have absolutely no clue what it would be like to be in the President's shoes. Sure, Bush hasn't done everything perfectly, but I seriously doubt any President has. I can say this at least, there haven't been any terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11 and that was several years ago. During Clintons' administration, there were several terrorist attacks against the United States.

What this reminds me of is the movie Bruce Almighty. He thought it would be easy to be God, but it isn't. I am sure the same goes for being the President.

At the end of the day, I agree with the war in Iraq and I agree about putting up a border fence between Mexico and the United States, or better yet, just taking over Mexico and the rest of the countries until we get to the very narrow stretch of the Panama Canal and using the Canal as our mote against illegal immigration. That will decrease the length of the fences (i.e., one on each side of the canal, do away with any digging underneath the fences, and shorten up the length of the border that needs to be patrolled. Make all those countries we take over states of the United States, give the people of those countries US citizenship and hold them accountable to the US laws, and hopefully straighten them out. INS will have less work to do, the Courts will probably have less work to do, and we will have less border to patrol and a securer border. On top of that, these guys will be able to provide us with the laborers that we need. What is the farm land like in Central America? If we really start using ethanol cars like Ford is trying to put out there, we might need the extra farm land. Resorts will be a lot nicer in Central America too.

[Skinny Shooter]

Hi Jon, I understand if you don't like our current President and respect your opinions. :) I don't like everything he does either. But when we have troops on the ground, I will not publicly attack him and further embolden the enemy. That ultimately plays right into the enemies hands and gets more guys and gals killed while they sit back and laugh at the useful idiots like Cindy Sheehan.
And I'm not referring to you in that manner. Every time I hear that whiner on the radio or tele I just gotta shake my head and grit my teeth.
Hey, that's my pet peeve for 2005: Baghdad Cindy Sheehan


Allen

[denton]

Let's take up a collection, so Cindy can carry her campaign to Iraq...

[gumpokc]

Originally posted by denton
Let's take up a collection, so Cindy can carry her campaign to Iraq...

actually i like that idea, lets send her over so she can get airtime, spreading her word from the Iraqi front.

[Skinny Shooter]

Can I hijack my own thread? :D
Check this out, LOL
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051126/480/txev10211261853

[jon lynn]

Dont get much news here about her, is she still at it? Despite all my views, I dont get her:confused:

The one thing I have always agreed on was, as a soldier you agree to pay the suprime price for your profession.

Anyway..............................SKINNY, I know you are a very clear guy, and I do respect your views too. That is the best thing I like about out little e-community here. I have not been attacked for my (sometime weird) views, and I know I have an abnormal brain function (even the VA says so).

It really isn't Bush by the way, the last president I really liked was Regan, and he is a hard act to follow!!! I think The Gipper was really good for the military and the people. Mr Carter was of good intentions, but was too niave.

I know a fence is silly and unrealistic, but it is not the Mexicans I fear, it is that ANY group can cross. I truly frea Alqueda types cross at their will to conduct their bad ways.

The ONLY problem I have with illegals, is they don't do ENGLISH. If I can learn German here (which I seem to have to speak daily at my PX job), they can learn English.