Trump now tied with Clition nationally according to Real Clear Poltics average

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that Trump is less likely to run off to war than Hillary is.    Trump seems to be more of an isolationist than a war-monger like Hillary.

I'll just leave this here ...

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/donald-tr...-disaster/

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was merely pointing out they're the most war-hungry nation on the planet, and that no other nation on Earth has such disrespect for the sovereignty foreign nation-states.

Well, you actually did compare the two countries right before you complained about an unfair comparison:

At least China tries to keep the peace and build positive relations with their neighbours (eg. North Korea); look at how the USA treats their neighbours such as Cuba! China doesn't go around instigating war and creating instability in the middle-east, and supporting Israel which leads to displaced peoples, economic and social stagnation, and of course the rise of extremist groups to replace the dispelled regimes.

We won't go into the instability China is creating in the South China Sea with its random claims which happen to sit astride sea lanes used by all countries, your own included.

Your short-sightedness is amusing.

[Aractus]

We won't go into the instability China is creating in the South China Sea with its random claims which happen to sit astride sea lanes used by all countries, your own included.

Your short-sightedness is amusing.

The disputed territories in the south china sea a. have not resulted in the kind of action the USA would take (trade embargos, war, or secret CIA operations), and b. were not created by China any more than by the Philippines, Malaysia, or Vietnam. You are clearly clueless on world affairs. China - being the wealthiest nation in the dispute - could in fact build their military presence in the region up well beyond that of the other nations - but it hasn't. Yes it has the strongest military base, but no large than one would expect them to have, and it's largely in response to the other nations building up their military presence to defend claim of ownership over the region. The south china sea is kind of like the Mediterranean Sea - it's surrounded by a whole bunch of different nation-states, but those nations are for the most part peaceful towards each other. The only thing that would start a war in that region is the USA who have no business in it, just like they would have no business in a dispute in the Mediterranean. Taiwan (which is actually China FYI and the country we usually mean when we say "China" is the "People's Republic of China") has a whole bunch of territorial claims there too. To try and pick one country and put the blame on them for the disputed territories is completely disingenuous. Even if PRC decided tomorrow they were going to width-draw all territorial claims in the region, it would still be disputed with military bases by five other nations. Plus if they did that it would make them look weak, and the PRC citizens wouldn't like it either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The disputed territories in the south china sea a. have not resulted in the kind of action the USA would take (trade embargos, war, or secret CIA operations), and b. were not created by China any more than by the Philippines, Malaysia, or Vietnam. You are clearly clueless on world affairs.

Nonsense. China has actually flouted international law by building an island and then declaring territorial sovreignity around it, amongst other reasons. And you clearly haven't asked yourself why China's actions haven't resulted in violence.

China - being the wealthiest nation in the dispute - could in fact build their military presence in the region up well beyond that of the other nations - but it hasn't.

This is laughably incorrect. Let me know when any other country in the region has built a base like this:

Yes it has the strongest military base, but no large than one would expect them to have, and it's largely in response to the other nations building up their military presence to defend claim of ownership over the region.

Nonsense. China initiated the build-up in the first place, and the nations in the region have been forced to respond to China's initial moves.

The south china sea is kind of like the Mediterranean Sea - it's surrounded by a whole bunch of different nation-states, but those nations are for the most part peaceful towards each other. The only thing that would start a war in that region is the USA who have no business in it, just like they would have no business in a dispute in the Mediterranean.

Here are the claims of the various states:



You will notice that China's claims stretch well over 1,000 km from their own shores, in clear violation of international law. The tensions in the area, whether or not they result in war (and I don't think they will) are the direct result of China's illegal claim to the waters which by settled law belong to other nations.

I personally think we should stay out of it, and let you guys handle it. I'm sure the Chinese will fall all over themselves in reinforcing your sanguine views.

Taiwan (which is actually China FYI and the country we usually mean when we say "China" is the "People's Republic of China") has a whole bunch of territorial claims there too. To try and pick one country and put the blame on them for the disputed territories is completely disingenuous.

Let us know when Taiwanese naval vessels are running down and ramming the vessels of other nations in the area. Let us know when Taiwan has built a naval base on a reef in order to enforce its claims. Until then, this is a red herring on your part in order to avoid cogently addressing the points being put to you.

Even if PRC decided tomorrow they were going to width-draw all territorial claims in the region, it would still be disputed with military bases by five other nations. Plus if they did that it would make them look weak, and the PRC citizens wouldn't like it either.

Well, that justifies their aggressive stance!

Do you even think before you post, kid?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I think that Trump is less likely to run off to war than Hillary is.    Trump seems to be more of an isolationist than a war-monger like Hillary.

I'll just leave this here ...

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/donald-tr...-disaster/

China processes our chickens and makes our cell phones.  Why would we ever get into a war with them?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In war everyone is a fighter.  There are no innocent "civilians".

Yeah, you've tried this before. You never did explain why kids should die for the enmities of their parents.

Not that you've ever explained anything else, either. You're a dolt.

In war everyone in the other territory is an enemy.  There are no innocents, regardless of age or sex.  Civilians fund the war machine and make the war possible.  Eliminate them and you eliminate the source of the conflict because the military can't survive without their support.  If you kill the kids then you kill the enemy's future, which prevents future conflict with them for several generations because they won't have the necessary manpower to be a serious threat.  Therefore, in order to protect the kids the parents need to stop being warmongers.  

In actual warfare America has never given a damn who it kills in war.  Babies burn just like enemy soldiers.

[account_inactive]

Yeah, you've tried this before. You never did explain why kids should die for the enmities of their parents.

Not that you've ever explained anything else, either. You're a dolt.

In war everyone in the other territory is an enemy.  There are no innocents, regardless of age or sex.  Civilians fund the war machine and make the war possible.  Eliminate them and you eliminate the source of the conflict because the military can't survive without their support.  If you kill the kids then you kill the enemy's future, which prevents future conflict with them for several generations because they won't have the necessary manpower to be a serious threat.  Therefore, in order to protect the kids the parents need to stop being warmongers.  

In actual warfare America has never given a damn who it kills in war.  Babies burn just like enemy soldiers.

Fucking lunatic.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In war everyone in the other territory is an enemy.  There are no innocents, regardless of age or sex.  Civilians fund the war machine and make the war possible.  Eliminate them and you eliminate the source of the conflict because the military can't survive without their support.  If you kill the kids then you kill the enemy's future, which prevents future conflict with them for several generations because they won't have the necessary manpower to be a serious threat.  Therefore, in order to protect the kids the parents need to stop being warmongers.  

In actual warfare America has never given a damn who it kills in war.  Babies burn just like enemy soldiers.

Fucking lunatic.

Wow, you really have a big problem with world history.  Did you miss those pictures of roasted Iraqi babies?

A small sample.
http://warisacrime.org/image/tid/58

[account_inactive]

Fucking lunatic.

Wow, you really have a big problem with world history.  Did you miss those pictures of roasted Iraqi babies?

A small sample.
http://warisacrime.org/image/tid/58

I don't have any problem with world history. I know perfectly well the shit that has happened. But you're a fucking lunatic for advocating it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Wow, you really have a big problem with world history.  Did you miss those pictures of roasted Iraqi babies?

A small sample.
http://warisacrime.org/image/tid/58

I don't have any problem with world history. I know perfectly well the shit that has happened. But you're a fucking lunatic for advocating it.

If I was Emperor of the world you would be enjoying peace and happiness.  Chill before you have a stroke.