Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why China will never Risk War with the US over Taiwan...
"The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace In The Twenty-First Century" | 2004 | Thomas Barnett

Posted on 03/12/2005 6:22:35 PM PST by AKSurprise

Wrong, read "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett, a former Professor and senior military analyst at the U.S. Naval War College, and a top adviosr to SecDef Donald Rumsfeld.

(the following are excerpts from the book that will explain why China's navy will never be a serious threat to the U.S.):

"What the Navy was coming to grips with in 1992, as the Soviet Navy continued its decade-long collapse, was an unprecedented moment in world history: America possessed the planet's only blue-water navy. By "blue-water", I mean a navy capable of projecting military power across all the world's open oceans. In contrast, the rest of the world's major states subsist largely on "green" (littoral) or "brown" (inland) fleets, meaning they have no effective reach beyond their region. Sure Russia today can send a few capital (or large) ships to distant waters, but they are not capable of operating on their own for any length of time. They cannot rule the waves, just ply them now and then. Frankly, the same is true for every other navy in the world today, including China's. While that country may harbor dreams of global naval power in some distant future, let me assure you that China's ruling Communist Party will not survive to see that day.

Again what is amazing about this period of history is not only that America possesses the world's dominant navy, something that previous imperial powers have achieved-like England in the nineteenth century. What is amazing is that we own the world's only navy with a global reach, and no other power is making any serious attempt to catch up. If you look around the world today you see countries that have armies and air forces, and what can charitably be called the equivalent of the U.S. Coast Guard. The world has effectively surrendered the seas the the U.S. Navy, and it has done so out of immense trust that America will not abuse that unprecedented power. That is the end of one great arc of human history , and the beginning of something completely different."

"The Navy was the first of the major services to recognize this massive rule-set shift because it suffered the greatest threat loss when the Soviet Union dissappeared. Both the Army and the Air Force have other armies and air forces they can and will occasionally fight against-as in our recent wars in Iraq. But the Navy fundamentally has no other navy left to fight anymore-unless you cling to the chimera of naval war in the Taiwan Straits."

(the following excerpt shows why war in the Taiwan strait is highly improbable if not impossible):

"Three key pillars control the vast bulk of long-term investments. Not surprisingly, these three constitute the Old Core of Globalization II: the United States, the (now) European Union, and Japan. This relatively small slice of the global population (approximately one-eighth) controls over four-fifths of the money. If you want to join the Core, you must be able to access that money-plain and simple.

That fundamental reality of the global economy explains why we won't be going to war with China. The Pentagon can plan for it all it wants, but it does so purely within the sterile logic of war, and not with and logical reference to the larger flows of globalization. Simply put, those flows continue to reshape the international security environment that the Defense Department often imagines it manages all by its lonesome.

Let me paint you the same basic picture I love to draw each time I give my brief to Pentagon strategists and, by doing so, give you a realistic sense of what China would be up against if it chose to challenge the United States-led globalization process wing military means.

China has to double its energy consumption in a generation if all the growth it is planning is actually going to occur. We know where the Chinese have to go for the energy: Russia, Central Asia, and the Gulf. That's a lot of new friends to make and one significant past enemy to romance (Moscow). But Beijing will pull it off, because they have no choice. To make all that energy happen, China has to build an amazing amount of infrastructure to import it, process it, generate the needed energy products, and deliver it to buildings and wehicles all over the country (though mostly along the coast). That infrastructure will cost a lot, and it's common when talking to development experts to hear the "T" word-as in "trillions"-casually tossed around. Where is China going to go for all that money? Certainly it will tap its biggest trade partner, Japan, for all it can. But when it really wnat to tap the big sources of money, there are only two financial communities that can handle that sort of a request: Wall Street and the European Union. So when you add it all up, for China to get its way on development, it needs to be friends with the Americans, the Europeans, the Muslims, and the Slavs. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of civilizations to clash with, does it?

The importance of this momentous but ongoing historical achievement cannot be overstated: the shift from Globalization II to Globalization III is a shift from a small minority of the world (basically one-tenth) enjoying globalization's benefits to roughtly two-thirds of the planet joining the party.

So tell me, if you are a George Kennan, or any one of the other wise men from that time long ago, and you were smart enought back in the late 1940s to target Europe and Japan for intergration into a revived global economy, whom would you target today? Half the world's population in Developing Asia, where economies are growing rapidly and energy demands are skyrocketing? Or would you work to keep such potential "peer competitors" at arm's length?

And that, my friends, is how you make a roomful of Cold Warriors cry."

(This explains the need to push for democratic reforms in the Mid-East. It's more than just preventing terrorism, the Bush administration is betting that in the future the Arabs will know who helped free them from opression and who their true friends are. Thus we can place more pressure on China to bend to our will on the world stage, even their size won't make up for our influence and wealth, not to mention military power. It also explains why China will never pull their massive investments in the US out, because to do so would harm our economy, however it would destroy the global economy and China's right along with it. That why the Dimocrats and the Buchanan conservatives are totally wrong about globalization, it will help preserve the US dominance not weaken it.)


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Israel; Japan; Philosophy; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: america; china; communistdisinfo; friedmancult; geopolitics; globalization; naive; nchamberlain; pandahugger; perestroikadeception; putwesttosleep; redteam; taiwan; thepentagonsnewmap; thomaspmbarnett; unitedstate; us; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2005 6:22:36 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Bttt


2 posted on 03/12/2005 6:24:32 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Protectionism is economic ignorance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Do you have a source and link for this?
Thanks.


3 posted on 03/12/2005 6:25:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
Why China will never Risk War with the US over Taiwan...

Because in the end, the PRC cares more about Beijing than they do about Taiwan.

4 posted on 03/12/2005 6:26:50 PM PST by RichInOC (...somebody had to say it...why not me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

no it's from Thomas Barnett's book, title at the top, howver he does have a blog http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/


5 posted on 03/12/2005 6:27:15 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Once again Americas power saves the world.


6 posted on 03/12/2005 6:28:14 PM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant (Remember the Red Sox won the World Series on George Bush's watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I think China is not only willing to risk war to take Taiwan, they are hell bent on it.


7 posted on 03/12/2005 6:28:21 PM PST by contemplator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

bttt


8 posted on 03/12/2005 6:32:53 PM PST by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I don't know. The author places an awful lot of faith in the influence of money.


9 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:05 PM PST by TwoWolves (The only kind of control the liberals don't want is self control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Summed up quite nicely.


10 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:24 PM PST by The Loan Arranger (http://profiles.yahoo.com/sandbear1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator
you may be right....but the Asians always seem to be more bluster than fight..........the Chinese Navy is terrible compared to ours and haven't won a been in a navel battle since whatever dynasty a hundred years ago and lost to the Russians badly....that old ambassador (can't remember name) on FOX all the time says their navel missles, tactics and armament is crap compared to ours........says they are just spouting off as they all do on that part of the continent
11 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:33 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub

China has been busy upgrading their navy - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357795/posts


12 posted on 03/12/2005 6:40:48 PM PST by contemplator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Comments and wishes for a speedy recovery !


13 posted on 03/12/2005 6:41:15 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I've seen Barnett on C-SPAN several times and I'm torn. Is he just a typical selfserving bureaucrat? Who knows? But he sure sounds like one.


14 posted on 03/12/2005 6:42:46 PM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
I disagree, and I'm no expert on China, but a few things:

Whenever a border nation with China is threatened, they enter the war. Korea was a perfect example of that.

The see Taiwan as we see Puerto Rico or Guam. They consider it a rebel Province, but their rebel Province. And with a million or more men in active service only a few hour's sail vs. We being so much further, they're in a stronger position than we are. And if they invaded Guam or P.R., is there any doubt we'd do all we could to take them back?

They now have nukes that can easily reach any part of that island nation, or ours.

They would see it as a great loss of face to threaten us so often of what they would do and not follow through.

15 posted on 03/12/2005 6:43:26 PM PST by theDentist (The Dems are putting all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator
oh I'm sure of that.......but that one expert actually many....have said that their force is much weaker than ours.....wish I could remember the ambassadors name. I think he is at the Enterprise Institute now but he is well informed about these world affairs.......
16 posted on 03/12/2005 6:44:21 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
you are right...but the Chinese entering many wars have got their butts kicked, first by the Russians and then by the Japanese......Korea was an anomaly cause we didn't respond in full force...
17 posted on 03/12/2005 6:46:12 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

"So when you add it all up, for China to get its way on development, it needs to be friends with the Americans, the Europeans, the Muslims, and the Slavs. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of civilizations to clash with, does it?"

3 out of 4 is good enough. In any case, China isn't exactly friendly toward the U.S. and its interests but we are still funding their build-up like crazy as it is.


18 posted on 03/12/2005 6:46:56 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

But your taking into account the China of the past. Yes they entered the Korean war, however were they to enter into a war against the US in the current world they would destroy their own economy. Additionally Taiwan has a very advanced military the third most powerful in Asia. They have a 200,000 man active duty army, with 1 million men in reserve. Your also forgetting that were China to nuke the US their whole country would be gone, its a risk they will never take, plus we have the Aegis missile interceptor system wasrecently activated, for all intents and purposes Taiwan and Japan are now covered by the US missile shield, those nations also have PAC anti-missile systems.


19 posted on 03/12/2005 6:48:40 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
I saw his presentation of this material on C-Span. Very entertaining, lots of bravado, but little substance beyond his very forcefully delivered opinions. I hate to rip on anyone from Wisconsin, but I think he makes a few key errors. The first is in underestimating the imbalance present in China's current internal situation and the complex pressures this could exert on their outward behavior. The second is in assuming that China, or any closed totalitarian state, will act in a predictable manner based on their own rational self-interests. I know very few Chinese and no Americans who can demonstrate a consistent understanding of Chinese history or even venture a credible prediction about their future. Any pronouncement about what they will certainly do of not do is meaningless. China poses a risk that needs to be closely monitored and managed.
20 posted on 03/12/2005 6:50:38 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

The thing this author completely overlooks is nationalism. This is a huge force among Chinese - which has been brewing since the early 90's. The Chinese are not necessarily going to act rationally - the issues of Taiwan and Japan transcend logic.


21 posted on 03/12/2005 6:51:19 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TwoWolves
I don't know. The author places an awful lot of faith in the influence of money.

Yes, I place some faith on the influence of money, but not all. I also place some faith in the fact that the Chinese leadership is "risk averse". Their support is built on nationalism and national pride. They are still in power because they have improved the standard of living and bring some amount of national pride.

This support however is not necessarily very deep. If they were to embarass the nation, then they would have some real difficulties. If the masses got it into their head that leadership was incompetent, or not leading them in to a bright and glorious future, they would have trouble.

A war with the United States is darn risky. Its even unpredictable. No matter how much better you think your navy is, the only way to be sure it can defeat the enemy is...to defeat the enemy. And if the Chinese leadership should suffer a national defeat, it would be a national embarassment, a national tragedy, and a national housecleaning. The only way they will go to war with the US is if they are backed into a corner or already have such serious internal unrest that they need to divert attention toward an outside enemy.
22 posted on 03/12/2005 6:52:31 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus

He doesn't argue to not monitor China, and he doesn't say a war is impossible, he indicates it's highly improbable. In any case the Pentagon is not going to be unprepared should (and this is a far-fetched scenario) there be a war with China in the Taiwan Strait.


23 posted on 03/12/2005 6:53:52 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

"Their support is built on nationalism and national pride. They are still in power because they have improved the standard of living and bring some amount of national pride."

Yes, but if they feel their support is failing because the economy goes south or other domestic issues, what will they do to shore up the population? In my opinion they will precipitate a crisis with Taiwan. That will be their final card and unfortunately I think that they will eventually play it.


24 posted on 03/12/2005 6:56:35 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Barnett is always interesting to read and listen to. However, he assumes rational logical behavior.

The PRC-ROC issue is extremely emotional and downright irrational for the PRC. The communist leaders have stoked nationalism to maintain their grip on power at the price of fanning the flames of reunification with Taiwan. This policy has the added benefit of generating anti-American sentiment, since we defend and support Taiwan. After the Tianamen Square students erected their own version of the Statue of Liberty, I'm sure the butchers of Beijing want anti-American/nationalistic emotions running high.


25 posted on 03/12/2005 6:57:08 PM PST by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator
If they think they can, they will try. When planning for the defense of the US one has to look a capabilities or any potential enemy. Then we have to assume that we are not dealing with people that are rational at all times. If a country run by a dictator or a dictatorial government is going under, the odds are that they will start a war.

The ChiComs have MIRVED ICBMs pointed at the US tonight courtesy of Bill Clinton. This alone indicates their intentions.

A strong Navy is necessary to project power (and keep in projected) in a large portion of the world.

26 posted on 03/12/2005 6:58:34 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (The old sailor sends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

Dead on, can't agree more, nationalism is the Communist Party's strength and weakness. Also China is going to have to improve the standard of living for its citizens if they want to maintain control of the government. In order to do that they need to be at peace with an economic expansion fueled by the Western economies. If they go to war with the US and/or Europe they lose. They destroy their own economy, we destroy their military, and the Chinese people destroy the Communist government, its that simple. Eventually the Commies are going to have to give up power in any case, but if they want to hold onto the government for any measurable length of time they need to be at peace with the West.


27 posted on 03/12/2005 6:59:19 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Gambling on logic to sway the Chinese military.


28 posted on 03/12/2005 7:05:00 PM PST by etcetera (No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom, unless he be vigilant in its preservation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd
Your right, opressed peoples know the US is not the enemy even if passions are stirred towards anti-americanism for a while, they always know who will help them win their freedom. Did you ever expect to see a US flag flying in the middle east, being waved by an Arab?
29 posted on 03/12/2005 7:05:10 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
If there was a naval embargo against China it wouldn't have to be along the Chinese coast. One along the west coast of the US would surely get the point across.

Whoops! There go the exports! There goes the old Chinese economy, right down the old toilet!

[A naval blockade along our west coast would also be cheaper. Heck, we could let the Coast Guard or even Customs do it! Products from China? Sorry, no entry. Try Canada.]

30 posted on 03/12/2005 7:05:58 PM PST by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
he doesn't say a war is impossible, he indicates it's highly improbable

Although I never heard him say anything as conditionally as what you quote above, the quote contains far more certainty than any credible prediction about China should.

31 posted on 03/12/2005 7:08:23 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus

I think its a perfectly accepatable probability that China would not go to war over Taiwan. Read it again, think about it, were the Chinese communist government to go to war they would destroy the Chinese economy, we would destroy their military, and the Chinese people would destroy the communist government. They are stuck in the system now, the Communists have a vested interest, they need our money and investments if they are to stay in power, without them they will be overthrown. The only reason the people accept them as legit for the time being is because they are providing a good standard of living for a large percentage of the population. Additionally the older Chinese that were dedicated to Communisum are dying out, the young are more concerned with material wealth and a good standard of living , and education for themselves and their children. China is caught in a catch 22.


32 posted on 03/12/2005 7:14:33 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
I recall that someone wrote a popular book proving that another great power war was impossible, due to the rapidly increasing interdependedness of the industrial nations.

This proof came out in the decade before World War I.

Anyone remember the name or title?

33 posted on 03/12/2005 7:16:54 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

This article assumes that someone like Bush would be in the White House when China was ready to move against Taiwan.

What if someone like Clinton were in the White House. I confess I breathed a sigh of relief when clinton left office and Taiwan was still free. Fortunately the Chinese were not yet quite ready to move. But clinton was already making noises to the effect that he would not defend Taiwan, and he had already provided China with the ICBM and nuclear technology they now threaten our cities with.

The Chinese are very patient. They may well be waiting to see who enters the White House in 2008. Or later.


34 posted on 03/12/2005 7:19:57 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

Look I am not arguing that a war is impossible, I belive its very improbable. Barnett if you read him carefully believes the same. Fact of tha matter is the world is totally different then it was 80 years ago, hell its totally different then it was 20 years ago during the Reagan administration. To make comparisions of events that happened in two entirely different situations stresses credible arguements. The same logic applies to the Dimocrats saying that Social Security still works for the America of the 21st century, because it worked for the America of the 20th century, its not an apt comparison.


35 posted on 03/12/2005 7:20:47 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Avenger
Yes, but if they feel their support is failing because the economy goes south or other domestic issues, what will they do to shore up the population? In my opinion they will precipitate a crisis with Taiwan. That will be their final card and unfortunately I think that they will eventually play it.

Oh I agree, if they face any serious unrest they will take whatever drastic measures they have to take to turn attention outward. They do that historically.

Thats when I will start to worry, but for the moment the above analysis applies IMO. We should remain prepared and not help them build up. Its like letting a nice friendly pit bull lick your face every day. Probably not a problem, but the potential is there.
36 posted on 03/12/2005 7:22:44 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

If we allow our naval power to erode, China will challenge our dominance in the Pacific in a heartbeat. THey'll probably do so anyway. Chinese carrier task forces are coming. They are gaining the wealth to do it, and there's nothing stopping them -- except democratic revolution.


37 posted on 03/12/2005 7:25:26 PM PST by Starrgaizr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

bump to read


38 posted on 03/12/2005 7:25:52 PM PST by GEC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub

Korea was no anomaly, they outnumbered us 7 to one and we kicked them back each time they tried.

The stale mate was due to the need to outnumber on the advance, you cant advance over mountains without massive airlift these days, and we didnt have it then


39 posted on 03/12/2005 7:26:52 PM PST by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I wouldn't get my hopes up over this--after all, Taiwan is in China's back yard, while the US has its armed forces all over the globe searching for monsters to destroy.


40 posted on 03/12/2005 7:27:38 PM PST by libertyman (It's time to make marijuana legal AGAIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
well I meant the anomaly was that the Chinese were effective to an extent though it was in a surprise assault during the winter.....they have not been an effective military for hundreds of years.....or at least won many major battles up to this point.......
41 posted on 03/12/2005 7:31:02 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
the Chinese Navy is terrible compared to ours and haven't won a been in a navel battle

Hmmmm.... NaVEL war -- I'd like to see that
42 posted on 03/12/2005 7:32:48 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
I can't remember the title but I remember reading about the book. Yes, not all governments make rational decisions based on economic conditions.

I've read that the China has problems with unemployment in the interior of the country which is causing social unrest and that China is artificially propping up its economy with such measures like keeping their currency low. Some China experts think that China's economy is ready to go bust, in which case the Chinese leaders may play the Taiwan card as a last resort to keep themselves in power.
43 posted on 03/12/2005 7:36:38 PM PST by Ticonderoga34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: libertyman

I disagree with the statement that we are searching for monsters to destroy. The US is taking pre-emptive actions both militarily and diplomatically to defuse potential and likely threats before they hurt us, as opposed to after they do. That was the great lesson of 9/11, if some have not learned that by now they have their heads in the sand. To still believe in a globalized world with instantaneous travel and communication two oceans no longer protect us. We are just as vunerable as the other nations of earth in the modern world. To not take action to ensure our survival would in essence be suicide. How many economic hits like 9/11 can the US take and survive. What happens if Iran or North Korea hands off a nuke to a terrorist group, or launches one themselves? It severely damages our economy. The reason China is not remotely likely to attack us is because they too now have a vested interest in the global economy, if we do bad economically the rest of the world does worse. Why do you think the Chinese are even bothering to help us in negotiating with Kim Jong Il? Out of the kindness of their hearts? No it's because they have a vested interest in a stable interntaional order.


44 posted on 03/12/2005 7:37:18 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: InShanghai; HighRoadToChina; maui_hawaii; srm913; Free the USA; rightwing2; borghead; ChaseR; ...

An interesting perspective, but I think the author seriously underestimates the Chinese on many different fronts. The world has already proven that human rights comes second to captialism.

Why else does China have prefered trading status with the US?


45 posted on 03/12/2005 7:37:50 PM PST by Dr. Marten (gei wo ziyou, haishi gei wo si wan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub

"Korea was an anomaly cause we didn't respond in full force..."

Korea was an anomaly because McArthur did not believe intellegence reports that the Chinese would attack. If he had done so by simply rearranging our forces to ambush them would have destroyed the Chinese army within a few miles of the Yalu River. The DPRK would have been aborted.


46 posted on 03/12/2005 7:40:39 PM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

haha....we'd beat them in naval and navel war.....our innies would beat there outies......


47 posted on 03/12/2005 7:41:09 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
One word: Amphibious capability.

Well, two words.

48 posted on 03/12/2005 7:44:19 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer

you are right........MacArthur on all his bluster made many a fatal mistake in underestimating the enemy......I for one don't hold him up as great a commander as many would have us believe.........his ego got in the way of many of his decisions......kind of like Patton though Patton backed up his bluster much more effectively


49 posted on 03/12/2005 7:44:37 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I hope you're right, tho I gotta admit that your use of the phrase "a stable international order" runs shivers up & down my spine. I also hope that most people on the Right haven't become what Richard Holbrooke said during the Presidential campain--BRAGGING that he & Sen. Kerry are "internationalists"!


50 posted on 03/12/2005 7:45:03 PM PST by libertyman (It's time to make marijuana legal AGAIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson