China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[gambit]

You're kidding right? The U.S. administrations made clear statements prior to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Regarding Vietnam, the U.S. stated its intent to stop the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.

Regarding Iraq, Bush said Saddam had 24 hours to leave Baghdad.

Afghanistan was the base for the attack on 9/11. This was simple retaliation.

Now, give me a credible citation of official Obama administration policy for an imminent war with China. Time to put up or shut up.

You specifically said 'territorial claim'.

Here is what State said...

The South China Sea

But we do not take a position on the competing territorial claims over land features in the South China Sea.

That is not 'territorial claims' as you often posited. A neutral position on one thing does not mean neutrality on all when it comes to a complex issue like the SCS where there are other competing issues.

Such as...

We oppose the threat or use of force by any claimant in the South China Sea to advance its claims or interfere with legitimate economic activity.

The US does have vital economic interests in keeping the SCS free of any Chinese domination and WILL take the necessary military steps to ensure that freedom. That does not mean the US accept/prefers the Vietnamese claim or the Phil or anyone else's.

Well I think that went straight over his head...

But he will get 'Thank' for it anyway......It is so sad to see anyone so obsessed with praises from an anonymous Internet forum then turned around and said his time is too valuable.

 

[Martian2]

You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.

Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.

How in the world did official American neutrality transform into B-2s flying into Chinese airspace (e.g. Amalakas has been posting endlessly on this kind of garbage)?

----------

BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia

"Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.

Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia
...
The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed."

 

[gambit]

You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.

Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.

----------

BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia

"Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.

Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia
...
The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed."

And State also said...

The South China Sea

We oppose the threat or use of force by any claimant in the South China Sea to advance its claims or interfere with legitimate economic activity.

 

[Martian2]

And State also said...

The South China Sea

So? She says that about Syria, Africa, India (Kashmir), etc. That's standard boilerplate. It means nothing.

The U.S. also said that about Georgia. The U.S. advocacy of peace is standard practice. It is said all the time.

How does a statement of the U.S. favoring peace turn into B-2s flying into China? You idiots have been discussing the issue continuously. Now, I want to know the basis for your idiotic discussion.

I thought I was on a professional defense forum and not Fantasy Geopolitics for nuts.

 

[amalakas]

You two idiots (Amalakas and Gambit) are engaged in a geopolitical version of Fantasy Geopolitics. It has no relation to reality and it clutters up the forum. Posts should use official government positions as a starting point and the discussion continues from there. You two clowns are off in your own little world.

Here's what official Obama administration policy looks like (see citation below). There are no B-2s headed for China. You two crazies are just loony.

How in the world did official American neutrality transform into B-2s flying into Chinese airspace (e.g. Amalakas has been posting endlessly on this kind of garbage)?

----------

BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia

"Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.

Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia
...
The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed."

Ahhhmmmm ... crazy or not, when did anyone say there are B-2s heading for China?

Another Chinese member (Blackdragon or something) posted an image showing a B-2 possible mission in hostile territory.

I asked him if he understands what he posted. When did anyone say B-2s are heading towards China now?

We will not be held responsible if the chinese people start running for shelters right now !!!

 

[gambit]

So? She says that about Syria, Africa, India (Kashmir), etc.? That's standard boilerplate. It means nothing. The U.S. also said that about Georgia. The U.S. advocacy of peace is standard practice. It is said all the time.

Then what State said about 'neutrality' can also mean nothing.

Ahhhmmmm ... crazy or not, when did anyone say there are B-2s heading for China?

Another Chinese member (Blackdragon or something) posted an image showing a B-2 possible mission in hostile territory.

I asked him if he understands what he posted. When did anyone say B-2s are heading towards China now?

We will not be held responsible if the chinese people start running for shelters right now !!!

THAT went over that guy's head.

 

[Martian2]

Then what State said about 'neutrality' can also mean nothing.


THAT went over that guy's head.

No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.

Anyway, I have provided a reputable citation from the BBC to back up my assertion that official Obama administration policy is neutrality.

If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.

I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.

 

[gambit]

No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.

Not the same as 'territorial claim', which is very specific.

I thought I was on a professional defense forum and not Fantasy Geopolitics for nuts.

The perhaps you should refrain from using 'Chinese physics' from now on since there are a lot of technically related discussions going on.

 

[amalakas]

No, she STRESSED neutrality. Also, neutrality is very specific. Try looking up the word in a dictionary.

Anyway, I have provided a reputable citation from the BBC to back up my assertion that official Obama administration policy is neutrality.

If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.

I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.

leaving your insults aside, I think you misunderstood what the statement about neutrality meant.

 

[gambit]

If you two clowns want to keep flying B-2s all over the world, the rest of the forum is going to laugh at you.

I asked you for reputable citations to back up your silly B-2 flights and you couldn't produce any. You two losers are degrading the professional reputation of our forum.

This is how juvenile your argument really is.

When people see something like that, they do not need to see an argument that is specifically detailed to China, or to Russia, or to Timbuktu, to deduce that the US is capable of sending the B-2 to China on notice that is unknown to China. They do not need to be a 'Military Professional' to understand. It is common sense.

 

[amalakas]

This is how juvenile your argument really is.

When people see something like that, they do not need to see an argument that is specifically detailed to China, or to Russia, or to Timbuktu, to deduce that the US is capable of sending the B-2 to China on notice that is unknown to China. They do not need to be a 'Military Professional' to understand. It is common sense.

I think he might be missing the political statement the use of the B-2 made in that case, which was beyond mission requirements.

 

[gambit]

I think he might be missing the political statement the use of the B-2 made in that case, which was beyond mission requirements.

Then as an 'armchair general' he should be demoted.

 

[amalakas]

Then as an 'armchair general' he should be demoted.

to a 'stool general' ??

 

[Abhishek_]

^ I LOLed....thanks for brightening up the morning. I am deeply thankful to martian and his ilk for their contributions. I rarely have to get coffee now.

 

[SinoChallenger]

In 2008, USA tried to fly a B-2 close to China to see if we would pick it up. We lit it up with EW beams and fried its electronics. After it returned to Guam base, it crashed.