Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CavLancer, Feb 2, 2014.
But there were OVER NINE THOUSAND casualties.
A lot of those injuries were self-inflicted. And most of the others are accounted for by British people getting lost, and blindly stumbling about (it was France, after all) as soon as they got off the ferry at Calais. Such casualties are high even today.
Ya know, didn't they say the same things back in 1901?
Just substitute European power blocks for the Red Chinese/U.S. alliances.
What allies does China really have?
North Korea. Sort of... If you want to call that an ally
War President Palin has a nice ring to it.
Maybe the USA will find a way to goto war with China and Russia at the same time. (and the middle east again)
That is not my contention. I suspect the Chinese pilot was trying a bit too hard and accidently rammed into the Orion. His recklessness cost him his life while also endangering the American air crew.
Ramming can be a deliberate tactic though.
You mean like the US, Walmart, Apple, and hundreds of other Fortune 500 companies? Did you know that China holds by far more US Treasury securities than any other country? That it is now up to $1.3 Trillion?
Then perhaps you should have used at least a half dozen verbs instead that don't insinuate that it was intentional.
And at least you apparently admit that you are just speculating here with no actual evidence.
Yeah, but this time it is actually more true than it was a century ago. I'm not so naïve to think a large scale state-on-state war is impossible, but I do think it is a lot more unlikely than a century ago. Since the end of the Cold War, major powers have been using their businessmen a lot more than they use their armies to achieve long-term strategic goals.
Honest first thought on reading the thread title: "Wait, where are the Scenarios again? Are they near the Phillipines?"
I don't do much of my best thinking before noon.
Numerous Formaldehydes had predicted the Great War unlikely because it would be unafordable. And many US firms were deeply invested in NAZI Germany until December, 1941. It seems to me however, that economics are not a primary consideration. Leaders decide first to go to war (or don't have a choice), then they figure out the trivial details like justifying it, paying for it, etc.
Just so. Foreigners have such funny names. But I just read a newsblip about how the Virginia House will change the geography school-maps from Sea of Japan to the "Eastern Sea". We Yanks can dumb-down anything.
I assume they can just throw themselves in the path of 'Murican bullets at the command of the Glorious Leader.
Better than President Quayle
Given that money is a fiction and to the winner go the spoils
Just look at the unnecessary wars in Iraq or Afghanistan
You don't just try, you really do.
Slow your roll there, highspeed.
I wasn't insinuating or trying to prove anything, just saying this was an incident which increased tensions. Did you not get that in the context of my post? Seems you are just spoiling for a fight.
Like I said, there are far better verbs. Using "ram" instead of "collide" is an excellent example of how to "increase tensions", much less speculating that it was the fault of the Chinese pilot.
China would have no reason or gain to attack the USA in the modern political climate.
In 20-30 years who can say?
I would make this prediction:
America "recession" deepens
Socialist power rises in the USA
Government cedes power to the military to crush populists
Fascist elements rise to power within the USA as a political opposition to socialists
Government ultimately sides with fascist elements
Chinese economy strengthens
Tries to tighten claim over Taiwan
Begins to gain air and naval strength in the region
Who can really say though? We can see political trends, but the ultimate spark will be resources.
Nitpicking a single word in someone's post is an excellent example of how to avoid replying to responses to you aimed at challenging your assertions What's your point?
Yeah, thinking about stuff is for communists, also gays.
Separate names with a comma.