Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think I have an idea as to why China has yet to turn Hong Kong into a communist city. They want to keep international trade est. there so that they can tax it for military purposes. That is why we must take action against China soon before they try to match us technological and economic.

Please don't strike me, I'm sorry. sad

chinas no threat

they depend on us for money, so if they started to build up their system and get paid more, we would leave and go to south america for our outsourcing

also their military is huge (bout 2.8 million) but is realy realy shitty and porrly equipped

also alot of their population doesnt care anbout the government, most of them outside of hong kong and big cities like that are in small farming communties and dont give a damn bout the outside world

and if there was a war, we would win, we got them surrounded (bases on japan, korea, australia, pacific islands, im sure taiwan wouldnt mind letting us use their place as a staging point, and we all nkow russia would want some of the action and attakc them to) and if they did land on the us, well, theres 80 million pissed off gun owning americans here, and 280 million americans in total

But still China has nukes and any country that isn't exactly an ally and has WMD's isn't what I'd call a safe situation.

300 to 10,000, China has nukes but the range is unknown, it may have the ones you need to drop via bomber or IBMs.

Perhaps, but China in any case should be taken likely especially now in this hostile world we live in.

we dont want to, also north korea would probably be attacked as well as china

alos, pakistan is sorta our ally (i say sorta because its shaky) but they havent directly crossed us yet



of course they are, in fact any major military build up that is threatening in nature is a problem and enough reason to declare war if diplomacy fails (which it suualy does)

if we had followed this logic, nazi germany may never gained power



huh? when have we ever attacked a large western nation unprovoked with the intention of killing their inhabitants or raping their land of resources and capitol?



since we are the biggest target around and the most likely to get hit with one

also, we are just enforcing the UN sanctions, i mean we pretty much are the UN without the voting right, we supply the vast majority of troops and funds

If there were to be any attacking done in that region - and I don't think this is going to happen anytime in the near future unless something major happens - then yes, North Korea would definitely be on the same bill as China.



Yet...but Afghanistan was in the exact same situation with the U.S. just a couple decades ago. Difference being that Afghanistan never had nukes, but Pakistan does. Shaky alliances of this sort could easily go either way. Right now, it's in our best interest to have that country on our side while we deal with Iraq, and possibly Iran.



I guess the question here is what is meant by "threatening in nature." I'm inclined to completely disagree with you on this...but this particular phrase might be misunderstood by me. If it appears that a country is definitely going to attack us (which was not the case with Iraq...), and a major military build up was going on at the same time...yeah, I could definitely see how declaring war might be in order. Once again though, what "threatening in nature" means is important here.

As for waiting before getting involved in WWII, that was always the U.S.'s stance on war previously, and we ended up being the most powerful nation on Earth as a result of waiting until the last minute. I'm not saying that it was right...but there are advantages and disadvantages with both jumping right in or waiting before going to war.



Hmmm...so it's ok to declare war against any country which shows any sign of aggression against a "western nation"? It would seem that the rules of war are bent completely in our favor. Besides, when has North Korea, China, or Iraq ever attacked the U.S.? Never. And yet you are clearly in favor of declaring war on any one of these countries for nothing more than hostility and military build-up. In that case, we are constantly building up our military (rightly so), and have been outwardly hostile in many ways towards France (...probably right so wink ). Yet you would say that it's wrong for France to declare war against the U.S.

All I'm trying to say with the France example, is that the reasons you and many others give for declaring war against another country can be used by many countries against the U.S. as well...but we would automatically declare any such action against the U.S. as wrong and evil. Since when can we get away with such double-standards? Is it merely because we're the richest and most powerful nation on earth? Wouldn't that mean we should be examples of what a moral, civilized nation is, rather than attack anyone who looks at us the wrong way?



Yes, we unfortunately are a big target, albeit a tough one to hit. My own reasons for fighting against declaring war on anyone who's shows hostility to us is because it only fans the flames of anti-American sentiment.



No. We are not the UN. We are just one of the major parts of it. This idea that the UN should do everything we say is completely and inherently against the entire idea of the UN. Where's the balance in power if the UN does everything we tell it to? Now, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues with the UN - including the ability to move swiftly. That, however, is a completely different argument, so I won't get into it here. Suffice it to say that I'm glad we don't control the UN...because that would make us that much bigger of a target.

As for supplying the majority of troops and funds...well, that's because we're the richest country on Earth. The way in which member nations fund the UN is directly proportionate to how much money that country makes. This means that Japan - who is not even on the Security Council or a permanent member - is the second highest funder for the UN...but without any of the voting rights that other countries have.