Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Is not a UN mandate required for NATO military engagement and defense?
Over 150 posts before anyone mentions the debt. Best sign that the original article is about what is literally possible, rather than what is actually realistic.
Whatever we think of the Chinese government, our economies are intertwined.
If they aggressively attacked our interests (violently seizing regional power unannounced would qualify in my book,) we could withhold all payment until after the dust settled, and then renegotiate the debt, likely in our favor.
Ceasing those payments is going to have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on China than us. Factories there would start closing immediately. The U.S. would get hurt too, but not to the same extent.
So WHY would China attack our interests? They can only hurt themselves.
Though I'd rather not, it could be argued a brief conventional dust-up with China (with them as the aggressor) is exactly what our economy needs. We could negotiate the debt, stimulate the economy, and "rightsize" the Chinese military.
This is lingering Cold War FUD.
Oh, that would be nice. Yes just fly the finger to everyone else with an interest in the outcome. Sadly, your probably serious; in fact that's probably the way you handle conflict in your personal life, **** everybody else, I'm doing what I want.
Ha, US presidents are keen to tell the UN to get beside us or get behind us when such "mandates" are unattainable.
Sadly your naïve enough to think that China will play nice if it ever came down to it. The allies didn't win WW2 by following international law because you just don't win a "total war" in that fashion.
As for my personal life I would prefer you didn't comment on that as you do not know me as a person, Thank you.
Over 150 posts before anyone mentions the debt. Best sign that the original article is about what is literally possible, rather than what is actually realistic.
Whatever we think of the Chinese government, our economies are intertwined.
If they aggressively attacked our interests (violently seizing regional power unannounced would qualify in my book,) we could withhold all payment until after the dust settled, and then renegotiate the debt, likely in our favor.
Ceasing those payments is going to have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on China than us. Factories there would start closing immediately. The U.S. would get hurt too, but not to the same extent.
So WHY would China attack our interests? They can only hurt themselves.
Though I'd rather not, it could be argued a brief conventional dust-up with China (with them as the aggressor) is exactly what our economy needs. We could negotiate the debt, stimulate the economy, and "rightsize" the Chinese military.
This is lingering Cold War FUD.
Declaring we would not honor debts to China as a winning strategy is unbelievably naïve.
See. There you go again, what are you a soldier and every problem is solved by a war? I'm talking about diplomacy to evade war. As for China, what would you consider playing nice? Following international law. Because you're suggesting the US fly the middle finger to it and just kick ass and the innocents be damned.
I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if China acted violently and aggressively against us or our interests and lost, that renegotiating the debt would likely be part of the peace accords at the end of the conflict.
Of course the main point of my post was that China wouldn't attack for that very reason, amongst others.
the whole idea of the thread is a theoretical war between the USA and China....:roll:
I think the question in reality is would we intervene on behalf of Japan.
Right, and you want to move it from the theoretical to the real by telling the world and their international law to take a leap.
no the thread title is "China could defeat the USA in 2020"". My point being that yes they could cause the US a lot of trouble unless the US "takes off the gloves". I wasn't advocating law breaking or saying that the UN should take a leap as this is all theoretical. However if the US and China were to go to war it most certainty come under the title "total war: and in total war both sides tend to overlook laws they would normally abide by ( WW2 being a good example of this). China already don't care much for international law especially when it comes to human rights, pollution, trade, computer privacy etc. So what makes you think China would play by the rules in a conflict against the worlds biggest superpower?
Yes so sense the US already doesn't follow international law, your suggesting we should stay that course. I mean you have some company with that and the US already conveniently refuses to recognise the authority of the ICC so there's little fear of reprisal. And while your clinging to the notion that the US is the worlds biggest superpower, that status is being challenged in many ways, and this op points at one of them. Are you texting and walking at the same time again?
Yeah that's it, our movies will save us!
no but being a culture people can relate to certainly helps especially if you were ever in a situation where you needed to gather support from other nations. How many western countries do you think will rally around China?
Yeh I am arguing with the Russian Report because well...Its Russian lol. It's a prediction nothing else probably drawn up and released in an attempt to shake up the region.I guess your arguing with the Russian report in the op. I don't know, how many Latin American countries do you think will rally around the US? I suppose everyone has their detractors.
Yeh I am arguing with the Russian Report because well...Its Russian lol. It's a prediction nothing else probably drawn up and released in an attempt to shake up the region.
As for Latin American countries I could not tell you but I don't think the US will need them since they will have Nato at their disposal as well as the very valuable ANZUS treaty will could prove to be very valuable given the location of any conflict in that region.
how many Latin American countries do you think will rally around the US?
Yeh I am arguing with the Russian Report because well...Its Russian lol. It's a prediction nothing else probably drawn up and released in an attempt to shake up the region.
As for Latin American countries I could not tell you but I don't think the US will need them since they will have Nato at their disposal as well as the very valuable ANZUS treaty will could prove to be very valuable given the location of any conflict in that region.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?