Possible war between China and India

#76
#76
So we don't have companies here in the US that aren't proffitable, yet have stock prices reaching all time highs? We have no room to talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#79
#79
BigOrangeTrain said:
Bush was a complete tool but at least we were still the world power under that moron. Obama turned us into a weak willed country that shakes hands and bows down with Middle Eastern countries that behead our citizens, burn our flag and celebrate any American death.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about Carter but we saw an immediate change when Reagan was elected. What's Trump's problem?

what-exactly-did-trump-just-do-before-the-saudi-k-2-20302-1495297190-1_dblbig.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
BTW, the idea that the Muslim world didn't fear Obama is just insane. Let's rank presidents by Muslim body count...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
n_huffhines said:
Does anybody know if this disputed land is particularly valuable?
Click to expand...

From an economic standpoint, not really. However, it does have strategic value to both India and China.

Check out the Doklam Plateau and the "chicken neck" they talk about.
 
#84
#84
n_huffhines said:
What does this have to do with anything?

With immigration, he was essentially the same as every other president. We've been letting in tons of refugees for decades and decades. What changed?
Click to expand...

suddenly under Trump there are fewer.

I don't think you can use a body count to define what they are afraid of.
 
#86
#86
n_huffhines said:
So the Muslim World is afraid of Trump deporting people but is not afraid of Obama killing Muslims? OK...
Click to expand...

I would have said disliked, and fear some of his policies; but not fear of the man or the office. granted I doubt there has been a president many people have been afraid of the person.

also violence doesn't work over there. We have been bombing them for how many years? We have yet to slap any of them into line.

heck just look at ISIS. the US, Russia, Syria, and whatever coalition forces, have been bombing them for years. It takes that much combined effort to make a dent in the numbers. hardly how I imagine a fearful target would act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
Rasputin_Vol said:
So we don't have companies here in the US that aren't proffitable, yet have stock prices reaching all time highs? We have no room to talk.
Click to expand...

Amazing that Wall St has no basis in reality. It's simply Las Vegas east. Throw enough money (pension plans) at stocks and the price goes up; then the mega investors invent a crisis and pump it out - great system. Bubbles and pins.
 
#88
#88
n_huffhines said:
So the Muslim World is afraid of Trump deporting people but is not afraid of Obama killing Muslims? OK...
Click to expand...

The Muslim world is just impervious to pain and common sense - except for the refugees and wannabe refugees caught in the middle, and some of those are pretty questionable once they get out.
 
#89
#89
AM64 said:
The Muslim world is just impervious to pain and common sense - except for the refugees and wannabe refugees caught in the middle, and some of those are pretty questionable once they get out.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you might be implying that killing terrorists does not deter terrorism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#91
#91
Grand Vol said:
What a sad panda you'll be if the Trump Admins helps cool down the tensions and negotiates this out of troubled waters.

Of course, you'll say "well, it wasn't Trump, but his Cabinet instead."
Click to expand...

I would be glad to see Trump negotiate such a deal.

Unlike the board's brand of conservatives when Obama was POTUS, I hope Trump can get it together and be effective. I'm not pulling against him except when he acts like a too sensitive, spoiled teenager and takes to Twitter. That and putting idiots into cabinet positions
 
#92
#92
n_huffhines said:
Sounds like you might be implying that killing terrorists does not deter terrorism.
Click to expand...

Depends on how many you kill. Since we have a little problem with not wanting to create collateral damage, we don't kill enough. You either fight to win or you don't; since Korea, we go about it half-assed.
 
#94
#94
carlos86 said:
This has been off the radar for a while now but things seem to be getting serious now. Since June China and India have been disputing over a border region called Doklam which is situated between Bhutan and China. Indian troops stopped the Chinese from finishing a road building project there. Both China and Bhutan lay claim to the area. Indian army entered the area on the request of Bhutan and a standoff between the two armies has continued. China and India haven't been at war with each other since 1962.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1460069/chance-war-nuclear-armed-china-india/
Click to expand...


The two largest nations in the world in terms of population going at it..

Let em.. Win win I say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
AM64 said:
Depends on how many you kill. Since we have a little problem with not wanting to create collateral damage, we don't kill enough. You either fight to win or you don't; since Korea, we go about it half-assed.
Click to expand...

Why were we in Korea?
 
#96
#96
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why were we in Korea?
Click to expand...

That's easy "We were saving the world from communism." That's just the way it was back then; whether you or I agree, somebody else was setting policy based on the perspective of the time.

In retrospect WW2 was still fresh and the enemy really had been intent on conquering the world, and the allies saw the communist countries as trying for a repeat.

Limited wars with no real strategy except to get back to a shaky starting point are losers even if you "win"; the enemy has no permanent loss other than lives and resources that they were willing to gamble from the beginning. It's like solving a crime without punishing the criminal - no incentive not to do it again.
 
#97
#97
AM64 said:
That's easy "We were saving the world from communism." That's just the way it was back then; whether you or I agree, somebody else was setting policy based on the perspective of the time.

In retrospect WW2 was still fresh and the enemy really had been intent on conquering the world, and the allies saw the communist countries as trying for a repeat.

Limited wars with no real strategy except to get back to a shaky starting point are losers even if you "win"; the enemy has no permanent loss other than lives and resources that they were willing to gamble from the beginning. It's like solving a crime without punishing the criminal - no incentive not to do it again.
Click to expand...

Hitler temporarily cured people of the notion that a belligerent country will behave if you just give them what they want. Appeasement exacerbated WWII, so for the time being any future potential conflict was dealt with militarily and not at the negotiating table. And really the reason WWII was able to occur only 20 years after the end of WWI was that the allies took their boot off the throat of Germany. The sanctions were harsh but the country was for the most part untouched. That aversion to war played right into Hitler's hands.
 
#98
#98
Grand Vol said:
I do think there is an opportunity to put the US into a third party mediator position here. As much as you'd hate it, it would give Trump a decent foreign policy "win" if he sent in Tillerson to broker a deal and get the two sides to back down.
Click to expand...

I didn't get a chance to address this the other day, but this is not a good reason for us to be involved. Sounds like you're more concerned about finding a way for Trump to enhance his resume. What good does a foreign policy "win" do for us on anything that really matters?
 
#99
#99
Rasputin_Vol said:
I didn't get a chance to address this the other day, but this is not a good reason for us to be involved. Sounds like you're more concerned about finding a way for Trump to enhance his resume. What good does a foreign policy "win" do for us on anything that really matters?
Click to expand...

Again, everything predicated on actually going into these negotiations.

Could care less about Trump's resume to be honest. That specific part of the post was in response to a specific poster that has known anti-Trump issues.

But overall, I'd prefer to see a peaceful resolution achieved, with or without US assistance, rather than bloodshed.
 
#100
#100
People are giving India the short end of the stick here I think. If you don't think that India could land at least a handful of their nuclear missiles into key Chinese cities you'd be sadly mistaken. It'd be bloodshed and destruction on an epic level.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top