Hawaiian

The U.S. will avoid a direct confrontation with Iran. The Mossad has been behind the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and are most likely attempting to sabotage the infrastructure supporting Natanz. If China invades Taiwan, India might be bold enough to move on the disputed border area. You and I can make suppositions, but in the end that is all they are.

Some of these countries are not pushovers. https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-world-most-powerful-militaries-2023-firepower-us-china-russia-2023-5?utm France gave up on Viet Nam after Dien Bien Phu. If I recall right South Korea sent in 350,000 troops and the Philippines sent medics. Japan has a beef with China over the uninhabited Senkaku Islands and know that Okinawa would be in harms way. Plus, the U.S. has a bunch of military bases scattered through out Japan. The U.S Seventh Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka and Okinawa has Camp Butler and Kadena AFB.

I suggest you find someone else foolish enough to engage in conversation with you. Go back under your bridge.

I thought you had all the answers. Could be I am mistaken.

Not my fault if you are not informed. Belief is not proof. Neither are opinions.

Coming from you, this comment is no surprise. I think peace through strength applies here. Xi is not ready to take on most of Southeast Asia plus Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, France and the U.S. in an all out war. China's adversary, India is also beefing up its military in the event of hostilities. The push back against China's BRI is just beginning with Italy pulling out and the situation in Pakistan becoming untenable. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan are having second thoughts. Yes things are heating up, but China's troubling economy, unexplained health scare and massive debt may cause China to pull in it's horns.

I agree with you that opinions are changing. News clips and video showing the destruction in Northern Gaza has gained the sympathy of those dismissing that much of this is inevitable if Hamas continues to resist by using their own people as human shields and continues the fight from hideouts in hospitals, schools and residential structures. It was Hamas that violated the last ceasefire after refusing to release any more hostages. There is now talk of flooding the tunnels in Southern Gaza with seawater in an attempt to avoid more civilian casualties. This idea was rejected in Northern Gaza for fear of killing hostages. I said this before, war is hell, but is the price paid if you want to defeat the enemy and end the war.

Thanks. I made the mistake of taking his post seriously. I miss the good, old days of Thaivisa when we seldom had to deal with this tripe.

While it may not be politically correct, and who cares, I totally agree with you. The saying "Money is the root of all evil," has its equal in "Religion is behind all the problems in the world." Religions, like many forms of government are created to control the masses.

Maybe I am having a Biden moment because I am having difficulty understanding your analogy. As a U.S. Navy veteran from Hawaii I have served on ships homeported both at Pearl Harbor and San Diego. The navy destroyers I served on were assigned to Formosa Patrol and as a radioman copied messages containing "serious warnings" from "Red China." We sailed in international waters and I don't recall it considered as setting foot on the Chinese mainland. Our R&R and replenishment port was the Taiwanese port of Kaoshiung. Again, I have difficulty seeing where you are coming from. Care to explain to this old salt?

Are you implying Israeli's patrolling the Red Sea is the same as "set(ting) foot in the country"? Kind of stretching it, like you frequently do.

Sorry, I did not understand it as such. Credit to you that you see the attacks as unprovoked. They are firing missiles blindly and indiscriminately at targets about a thousand miles away in sympathy with Hamas. Both are proxies of Iran, doing the dirty work of their Shia master. And both groups will eventually be destroyed; the Houthis by the Saudis if the U.S. doesn't do it first and Hamas by the Israelis.

Let Danderman speak for himself. And if he meant Yemen, then I got news for both of you. Israel has never set foot in the country. Say what you mean and mean what you say applies here.

A "brilliant" strategy. One to be expected, judging from your other comments. If someone is shooting at you would you continue dodging their bullets or would you fire back in an attempt to stop the shooter? Destroying Houthi missile launch sites should not entail "bombing thousands of Yemenis to death." More of your hyperbole.

Houthia? Never heard of it. Houthis? National resistance group in Yemen.

"alienating the whole world"? Really? https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle/east/which-side-countries-that-back-israel-and-those-that-oppose-it-20231011-p5ebiz.html

"Biden team wary of retaliating against Houthi attacks at sea". These are the headlines for an article I just read. More classic stupidity. What's the purpose of deploying 2 carrier groups to discourage the Hamas/Israeli conflict from spreading if they sit and watch. While I don't want to see an escalation, it makes no sense not to eliminate the source of these missiles and drone launching sites. Since 1945 the U.S. has been fighting with one hand tied their backs. Disgusting. It's no wonder why the U.S. gets no respect.

I am not implying that the U.S. won the war. Some of my close friends fought there and some even lost their lives. I was very upset the U.S. blew it after all the valiant effort by our troops and the South Korean Army. Since 1945, the U.S. military has been hampered by rules written by the politicians in DC all against the advice of seasoned veterans. In other words we were not "allowed" to win. Viet Nam was no exception. In Korea the politicians were afraid of the Chinese. Same thing with Viet Nam. The disaster we call Iraq would have a lot simpler if the U.S. was allowed to destroy Saddam's retreating forces. Afghanistan is a classic lesson of plain stupidity. We were fighting the Taliban which we helped to create years earlier. What I was alluding to was while we lost to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh, we have a fairly good relationship with Hanoi today.

Viet Nam is not the only SE Asian country challenging China's claim to the South China Sea. Just this past June, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan along with two guided missile cruisers visited the port of Da Nang. I would think that is a tacit sign of cooperation or collaboration. You tell me what you think that signals. A formal signed agreement is not always necessary for cooperation. Besides, how do you know what both sides have talked about behind closed doors? Have you been following stepped up Philippine push back against Chinese territorial claims, now that the U.S. had gotten involved? Even Canada has voiced their support of the Philippines. Lately Japan has been more vocal in their dispute over the Senkaku Islands. China has attempted to sideline U.S. support which so far is not written in stone. If this is not cooperation or collaboration, then what is it?

I like what you wrote. Catholicism did to the Italians (and other Europeans) what Islam did to the Arabs. Think Galileo and Copernicus and the persecution of Jews.

They are convenience stores. Customers shop there as a matter of convenience and usually not because they are looking for healthy food or bargains. Similar to patronizing a fast food outlet. Think speed and convenience and not a gourmet dish.

7-Eleven has become the automatic place to go to for so many shoppers it will be difficult to successfully compete against them. As long as 7-Eleven keeps prices stable and continues their present policies they will continue their dominance.

Although there is some room for argument, most Iranians were considered to be middle class before the Revolution. Prices were fairly stable. Today the majority of the population are poor and inflation is a serious problem for them. One reason the U.S. supported the Shah and his repressive policies was the fear of communism. Similar to the backing of Marcos until the Filipinos had enough of his brutal tactics. The toppling of the mullahs caused by foreign intervention and/or military action wouldn't necessarily be followed by a ground invasion and occupying forces. A spontaneous peoples rebellion could happen with anti-government forces taking over and eventually calling for free and open elections. I would venture to say a more secular oriented government would be the result. Wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not.

Sorry, I missed that point. The people I mentioned evidently were schooled by American native-speaker instructors. I know my girl's niece was.

Funny that you mention that. I have a friend from the UK that jokes around with me as to what English accent he was going to use for the day. I though he was pretty good in his imitations.