• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"China dreams of emulating the Taliban".

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
We ought to go back in and retake Afghanistan to prevent a serious future threat from getting even stronger.

People forget 9/11 it seems and the country where that threat came from, including other countries that harbor them.

And no country will start any nuclear war unless there is a death wish in the minds of those employing such weapons.


I’m curious. How much of a commitment in terms of money and manpower, do you think would be required for the US first to retake, and then to hold Afghanistan? Do you think a US led military presence would ever be anything other than an army of occupation? Do you think the people of Afghanistan, however much some of them may fear the Taliban, actually want US soldiers there?

Have you ever spoken to any army personnel who served in Afghanistan? I can assure you that the consensus among U.K. troops who served in Helmand Province, was that in that particular region, Westerners were not trusted and not welcome.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I’m curious. How much of a commitment in terms of money and manpower, do you think would be required for the US first to retake, and then to hold Afghanistan? Do you think a US led military presence would ever be anything other than an army of occupation? Do you think the people of Afghanistan, however much some of them may fear the Taliban, actually want US soldiers there?

Have you ever spoken to any army personnel who served in Afghanistan? I can assure you that the consensus among U.K. troops who served in Helmand Province, was that in that particular region, Westerners were not trusted and not welcome.
No different than bases in Saudi Arabia or Iraq with cost being minimal over time.

I think we and our allies are there to insure that dangerous regime's don't get more powerful or more advanced, making it much worse and far more precarious down the road if we didn't do that.

The same reasons why permanent bases were established after ww2 concluded.

Of course I'm sure other reasons have cropped up like oil and tactical locations but the primary reasons are still the same as I see it.

To keep our potential enemies under foot and limited in their capability to grow and expand militarily.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Well, if I were the president, any aggression by China would result in the immediate launch of at least 100 nuclear weapons targeting their cities.
And I would let them know it ahead of time.

Then after destroying their cities, I would send contractors in to rebuild.

Wn, win, win, win.


Wonder if I could get elected on that platform?

I’m sure I could get quite a few votes.

You would get support from the stupid and unthinking for certain.

And what do you think China would be doing all this time, How much of the USA would be ashes.

Have you thought how much of America's supply chain and jobs are dependant on China.
Or how much of America and its economy is owned by China.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
You would get support from the stupid and unthinking for certain.

And what do you think China would be doing all this time, How much of the USA would be ashes.

Have you thought how much of America's supply chain and jobs are dependant on China.
Or how much of America and its economy is owned by China.
You are very correct.
But the madman doesn’t care what happens to his people, as long as the “other people” are destroyed.

I can’t imagine you took my post seriously.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
What would you suggest we do?

Encourage the worlds leaders to support the UN and its decisions on this matter with no veto votes permissible.

The topic needs to be discussed and voted upon by the world.

Regards Tony
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You wrote...
I asked...




So you are criticizing Biden for doing the same thing you say should be done. Hmm.
Sad you cant tell the difference on what if scenarios from what the real moment is.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Encourage the worlds leaders to support the UN and its decisions on this matter with no veto votes permissible.
In other words, make the UN Supreme Arbiter.

But who is the UN? Isn't it member nations? What if the UN decides that Japan and Hawaii really belong to China?

Another topic, another unrealistic, unworkable "solution".
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
In other words, make the UN Supreme Arbiter.

But who is the UN? Isn't it member nations? What if the UN decides that Japan and Hawaii really belong to China?

Another topic, another unrealistic, unworkable "solution".

When all Nations are signatories to the World Body, that body will make binding decisions.

It is unproductive and useless to decide what that decision might be, as peoples frames of references would have changed significantly from this moment in time.

Regards Tony
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It is a possibility.

The US is thought to be able to fight 3 wars or fronts simultaneously but that may have changed since then.

In terms of pure military strength this is still true (mostly...it would depend on how active the fronts are). But to say the cost would be prohibitive is a massive understatement. And the political will of the people to support multiple fronts at once seems dubious.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In terms of pure military strength this is still true (mostly...it would depend on how active the fronts are). But to say the cost would be prohibitive is a massive understatement. And the political will of the people to support multiple fronts at once seems dubious.

It's why China is a, if not the most serious threat.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It's why China is a, if not the most serious threat.

China is not a threat to mainland America. It has no interest in that direction. However it is a threat to any area that may target its own mainland,
which covers the entire south China sea as far as north Australia and as far in to the Pacific as Guam.
It can cover that entire area from its own shores with guided missiles.

America would now lose a sea war of attrition, as it no longer has the capacity to build and replace damaged or destroyed vessels at even a fraction the rate China can.
China has the capacity to destroy any threat from the sea. Before it can target the Chinese territory. However it main strength is in defence, it has not built up any long range attack force or invasion capacity.

So it is no threat to mainland America. Except nuclear retaliation by intercontinental rocket. Which is part of its defence strategy
 

esmith

Veteran Member
China is not a threat to mainland America. It has no interest in that direction. However it is a threat to any area that may target its own mainland,
which covers the entire south China sea as far as north Australia and as far in to the Pacific as Guam.
It can cover that entire area from its own shores with guided missiles.

America would now lose a sea war of attrition, as it no longer has the capacity to build and replace damaged or destroyed vessels at even a fraction the rate China can.
China has the capacity to destroy any threat from the sea. Before it can target the Chinese territory. However it main strength is in defence, it has not built up any long range attack force or invasion capacity.

So it is no threat to mainland America. Except nuclear retaliation by intercontinental rocket. Which is part of its defence strategy
You seem to disregard the Navy's attack submarine fleet.
In addition what weapon system does China have other than ballistic missles that can reach Australia, and Guam from mainland China.
As far as your opinion that China does not built up any long range attack forec or invasion capacity, I do beleive you are a little navie or misinformed.
The below articles are a little out of date,2019, but give a good overview of China's blue water Navy desires.
Defence Connect
China building a powerful blue water navy
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
You seem to disregard the Navy's attack submarine fleet.
In addition what weapon system does China have other than ballistic missles that can reach Australia, and Guam from mainland China.
As far as your opinion that China does not built up any long range attack forec or invasion capacity, I do beleive you are a little navie or misinformed.
The below articles are a little out of date,2019, but give a good overview of China's blue water Navy desires.
Defence Connect
China building a powerful blue water navy

Those links largely confirm my contention that China is building up its forces to control/defend its sphere of interest . Which with the advent of their Belt and Road imitative, covers an area right through the the south China sea to Indian ocean to the middle east. and down the east coast of Africa. This area Was previously the hegemony of the USA. but is now seriously in contention. America has lost both the Construction ability and the where with all, to fund and to keep pace with the growth of China's sea power.

America no longer has the shipbuilding capacity, skilled work force or the supplies of the necessary steel to build ships at anything like the rate China is currently doing.

Americas allies are in a similar parlous state. and most rely on China for their bulk finish materials.
However though Australia have almost unlimited supplies of coal and Iron ore, with China as their far largest customer. China has reduced their reliance on them for raw materials over the last few years. Possibly to reduce the strategic threat of over reliance.

China has shown little interest in becoming a direct threat to the territories of either Europe or the United states. however it is seen a a threat by India and Australia. It has large developmental interests through out Africa and the middle east which it will continue to grow and defend.
The only other continent where it could extend its interest in development, is South America, though these would be more difficult to defend. and it would take a major turn in their military policies to bring in to the mix.
Though if South America is part of a long tern plan, one can only expect China to do what ever is necessary to support it.

What is certain, is that it will not allow America to stand in its way.
With in five to seven Years China will replace The USA as the words major strategic power. This will follow soon after China becomes the worlds major industrial and commercial super power.

It might already be the major nuclear power, no one seems to know.

China already has by far the worlds largest Submarine fleet, though has fewer nuclear submarines. non nuclear, are far quicker to replace due to losses during hostilities.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
It is unproductive and useless to decide what that decision might be, as peoples frames of references would have changed significantly from this moment in time.
It is unproductive and useless to propose grandiose plans that have no basis in reality.

It's just as useless and unrealistic as proposing that God Himself comes down and rules the world hands-on.
 
Top