The war with china wont'be a trade war;It'll be the real one.

[Hussein]

The issue is size disparity. Regardless of who started the war between Iraq and Iran, the charge and implication here is that the US could not fight any foe of similar size. The fact that despite the size disparity between Iraq and Iran, a war existed and that rendered the charge ridiculous.

I agree with what you say
but i just focus on fact that it is nothing to do with size: why Sadam attacked our country. At that means a smaller country can attack a bigger country when the conditions are favorable.

It was a logical alliance but hardly a physical one as neither could lend troop support to each other. Imperial Japan attacked a much larger country -- the US -- and that rendered the size disparity charge ridiculous.

Japan already starting its policy in East Asia and before any attack on americans. So it was logical.
Second point: even you're totally right, a part of american soldiers were helping europeans in north africa and later in europe. in africa since 1942 and they included in their AHQC the Montgomery army infeb 43. maybe Japan was thinking USA had so much work there to do later? i don't know. ah yes as far i can remember what i learned it is not a problem of ressources transport?

 

[Cheetah786]

The only war among China and USA is Currency war and thats happening right now other then that no chance of real bullet being fired.

But there is wet dreamers out there on both side of the pond wishing people to die so they can profit from it.

 

[CardSharp]

This is funny. I posted the same article a day before with the original headline "reluctant warriors" (the title the author chose) and non of you flamers read it.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/77313-reluctant-us-china-trade-war.html

Just shows people are attracted to flaming headlines like flies to **** and nobody bothers reading the actual articles people post.

Where did it suggest that China is going to war with the U.S.? Stupid topic.

The jingoistic editors at FP likes to do crap like this. They rename the title on the link of the piece to something inflammatory without regard to the actual title chosen by the author or the piece's final conclusion. I wouldn't read that piece of rag if not for Tom Rick's daily column (he's a member of CNAS, just chose to write at FP)

 

[CardSharp]

Sincerely hope this comes to pass, more jobs, more independence, more economic benefit.

Who am I to complain that China refuses money and jobs.

Do you know about the conditions at those mines? No Americans work under those those conditions for that price. It's funny how Americans complain about jobs lost to China, when those jobs just wouldn't get filled state side because most of you would go on welfare or disability before you'd consider doing them.

Who are the socialists now?

 

[lcloo]

Do you know about the conditions at those mines? No Americans work under those those conditions for that price. It's funny how Americans complain about jobs lost to China, when those jobs just wouldn't get filled state side because most of you would go on welfare or disability before you'd consider doing them.

Who are the socialists now?

I wonder too, are Americans willing to work as coolies and street-sweepers?

 

[Hafizzz]

if the americans want the rare earths so badly, take it from us. withdrawing from the WTO is not out of the question if it seriously impinges on our interests. the US has one of the largest stockpiles of rare earths in the world, and it refuses to mine them so it can use our stockpile.

Too bad China has a nuclear arsenal or else USA will come up with an excuse to invade China and steal all her natural resources (Rare Earth) just like how USA invaded Iraq and controlled all the oil wealth in the country.