Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You like to reply to strawmen instead of what was stated. YOU are the with the fantastical commentary. ...and then (Instead of reading) you attempt the failed mind-reader act. I don't know about if attacking Taiwan would be easy or necessary for China, but it is easy to call out your ridiculous commentary regarding it 'not costing too much' for the US to try to blockade China. Fantasy to think that, and that the spillover effects won't be enormous.
I already answered you. Here it is, if you missed it.
"Losses won't be enormous for the USA. China lack the strength to break a sea blockade. If it tries to break the blockade then China's navy will be an easy target for America's submarines. Ship after ship will get sunk and tens of thousands of Chinese will die every day. That would be a national embarrassment for China, so most likely it won't even try and trade through Russia instead."
And it is not a strawman that you think an invasion will be easy for China. As I told you in the last post, if the USA won't dare to do blockade, then they certainly won't dare a full-scale war. And as a pro-CCP person, you definitely don't think Taiwan will manage to beat China alone. In other words, you think the invasion will be easy.
If you disagree, tell us why you think it won't be easy for China. Saying "I don't know what will happen" wont work as your current arguments show me that you think it will be easy.
. It is in the USAs interests to blockade China and let them slowly suffocate as it won't cost the USA much, China is too weak to break the blockade and it won't result in Taiwan being bombed to the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
I already answered you. Here it is, if you missed it. "Losses won't be enormous for the USA .
You have amended your statement that I was replying to. So which is it? "Won't cost much" or "Won't take enormous losses"? Aren't you going to admit you changed your statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
And it is not a strawman that you think an invasion will be easy for China. As I told you in the last post, if the USA won't dare to do blockade, then they certainly won't dare a full-scale war. And as a pro-CCP person, you definitely don't think Taiwan will manage to beat China alone. In other words, you think the invasion will be easy.
If you disagree, tell us why you think it won't be easy for China. Saying "I don't know what will happen" wont work as your current arguments show me that you think it will be easy.
Yeah, another desperate strawman. Trying to concoct entire scenarios and act as if I said them or even think them. I had no comment on 'an easy invasion for China'. All your words.
So, the question is why are you making up all this up? To distract from your earlier ridiculous comment maybe. A good starting place is for you to admit your disingenuity so the discussion can start fresh.
You have amended your statement that I was replying to. So which is it? "Won't cost much" or "Won't take enormous losses"? Aren't you going to admit you changed your statement?
The reason I wrote enormous is because you switched to enormous. Here is what I quoted in the second post.
"This is crazy talk. Do you think China would permit itself to be blockaded? It's not even in the realm of possibility they would. Losses would be enormous and there is no appetite for that here in the states, nor should there be. "
You are also not responding to what I wrote, just focusing on some minor language difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticking
Yeah, another desperate strawman. Trying to concoct entire scenarios and act as if I said them or even think them. I had no comment on 'an easy invasion for China'. All your words.
You are not a source of truth. If you believe it is a strawman, then explain why.
In other words, tell us why you think it won't be easy for China or why we can't conclude from your arguments that you think it is easy.
You are not a source of truth. If you believe it is a strawman, then explain why.
In other words, tell us why you think it won't be easy for China or why we can't conclude from your arguments that you think it is easy.
YOU are not the source of truth.
You have concocted an entire scenario and ascribed it to me. I'm not interested in defending arguments I never made. Your statement about 'costs not being much' is the one I find ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
The reason I wrote enormous is because you switched to enormous. Here is what I quoted in the second post.
.
You want to believe the 'costs wouldn't be much' for the US to try to blockade China You think China is too weak to respond effectively. I think you are flat wrong although I see no need to bolster my thought by concocting weird scenarios where China sends their ships one after another like lemmings to be slaughtered. It all reads like fantasy.
Your explanation of 'costs not being too much'...just doesn't hold water.
YOU are not the source of truth.
You have concocted an entire scenario and ascribed it to me. I'm not interested in defending arguments I never made. Your statement about 'costs not being much' is the one I find ridiculous.
I never said I was. Unlike you, I didn't just state that you think it is easy, I also explained why that is a logical conclusion from your argument.
Shouting "No, it is a strawman" implies that you think you are a source of truth, which you certainly aren't. If you think my reasoning is wrong, then explain why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticking
You want to believe the 'costs wouldn't be much' for the US to try to blockade China You think China is too weak to respond effectively. I think you are flat wrong although I see no need to bolster my thought by concocting weird scenarios where China sends their ships one after another like lemmings to be slaughtered. It all reads like fantasy.
Your explanation of 'costs not being too much'...just doesn't hold water.
No one cares what you think. You are not a source of truth.
If you want to prove me wrong, then you need to explain why you think China can make America get enormous losses if they attempt a sea blockade.
Shouting "No, it is a strawman" implies that you think you are a source of truth, which you certainly aren't. If you think my reasoning is wrong, then explain why.
.
Another stupid statement! YOU trying to mind read and design my position means "I'm the source of truth". How much sense does that make? Get a grip, these are very foolish logic free statements you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
No one cares what you think. You are not a source of truth.
If you want to prove me wrong, then you need to explain why you think China can make America get enormous losses if they attempt a sea blockade.
Who cares about 'PROVING you wrong'? Where would anybody get this proof?
YOU are the one stating that an attempted blockade "won't cost the US much."
I don't need to 'prove you wrong'. I just think the statement is ridiculous and you lack credibility for making it. Your efforts to distance yourself from the statement show that you realize you are on shaky ground, although you are afraid to acknowledge it. Why not admit it instead of creating phony narratives I didn't state?
China has enough missiles to destroy Taiwan without invading it. At best Taiwan can intercept 80% of the incoming missiles. The 20% that make it through can cause a lot of damages and effectively cripple Taiwan.
China probably won't do this, but who knows. This scenario would avoid a confrontation with the USA.
China doesn't want to "destroy" Taiwan: it would cost them the infrastructure they want, first and foremost; it would kill vast numbers of ethnic Han Chinese people, who it claims it wants to liberate from Western clutches and return to the Motherland, which wouldn't sit well with a large number of Chinese who may find it acceptable to attack their military but not to kill off Han civilians; it would put most of the world at odds with China; and it would ensure that if won, Taiwan would be extremely difficult to control, as the occupied survivors would never tolerate CCP rule.
Attacking Taiwan directly wouldn't explicitly avoid a confrontation with the US either. Biden has stated that the US would intervene on China's behalf; if the US did, Japan, Korea, and Australia likely would, as well. Honestly, I think a blockade from either country could be less dangerous because even if and when the other broke it, they'd be less inclined to attack, because it would result in war.
China actually has enough food. It imports some food due to lower costs or better taste.
The imports are mostly from Southeast Asia where costs are mostly cheaper than China.
About 90% of the food eaten by the people in China are not imported.
Food from the western countries are mostly bought by the people in large cities not most Chinese.
That's not the case at all, and is why Xi has been pushing for food autonomy and a reform in China's agricultural practices in recent years. In a conflict, China would find the cost of food spiking heavily; some nations may stop sales to China, requiring them to go through a middleman, while others would simply hike their prices since they would know China has no choice but to pay.
Another stupid statement! YOU trying to mind read and design my position means "I'm the source of truth". How much sense does that make? Get a grip, these are very foolish logic free statements you are making.
That clearly went over your head.
Let me explain it to you with a similar example
Person B: I believe he will pass the exam
Person A: He won't attend the exam, the questions are too difficult for him
Person B: He is a very strong student, that means you think the exam is very difficult
Person A: That is a strawman.
Person A didn't say the exam was very difficult, but it is a logical conclusion of a very strong student not being able to pass. When person A refuses to argue why it is a strawman, then he is assuming that he is a source of truth.
You are doing the same as person A. I reasoned from your argument that you think a Taiwan invasion will be easy and you just shouted strawman like you are a source of truth. You are not, so you need to explain why you think my reasoning is wrong.
Quote:
Who cares about 'PROVING you wrong'? Where would anybody get this proof?
YOU are the one stating that an attempted blockade "won't cost the US much."
I don't need to 'prove you wrong'. I just think the statement is ridiculous and you lack credibility for making it.
Presumably you. This is not a blog, it is a forum where you are supposed to defend your positions. You are claiming that I am wrong, and the USA will suffer enormous losses from a blockade.
And yes, I am stating that a blockade won't cost the US much. I have also explained why I think so, and your only rebuttal is that you personally think I am wrong.
What makes you think anyone care that you personally think my argument is ridiculous and I lack credibility for making it? You are not a respected source, you are just a CCP fanboy. No one gives a damn about what you personally think, so you need to defend your arguments like everyone else.
Let me explain it to you with a similar example
Person B: I believe he will pass the exam
Person A: He won't attend the exam, the questions are too difficult for him
Person B: He is a very strong student, that means you think the exam is very difficult
Person A: That is a strawman.
Person A didn't say the exam was very difficult, but it is a logical conclusion of a very strong student not being able to pass. When person A refuses to argue why it is a strawman, then he is assuming that he is a source of truth.
You are doing the same as person A. I reasoned from your argument that you think a Taiwan invasion will be easy and you just shouted strawman like you are a source of truth. You are not, so you need to explain why you think my reasoning is wrong.
.
A big dog and pony show to try to defend and justify making up positions for someone you think you disagree with. I don't need to have a strong position to know that your position about 'it not costing much' is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Presumably you. This is not a blog, it is a forum where you are supposed to defend your positions. You are claiming that I am wrong, and the USA will suffer enormous losses from a blockade.
And yes, I am stating that a blockade won't cost the US much. I have also explained why I think so, and your only rebuttal is that you personally think I am wrong.
What makes you think anyone care that you personally think my argument is ridiculous and I lack credibility for making it? You are not a respected source, you are just a CCP fanboy. No one gives a damn about what you personally think, so you need to defend your arguments like everyone else.
Yup you are wrong....and yes, your position that the US creating a blockade wouldn't cost much is ridiculous.
I don't consider your defense of the position as a defense...it was just fantasies about fictional Chinese lemmings steaming into torpedoes and dying by the 10's of thousands daily. Just so ridiculous that nothing needs to be said other to point it out. You obviously have some sort of ax to grind and enjoy creating these sorts of fantasies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
