Hawaiian

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm well aware of the French in Indo China, and the Dien Bien Phu disaster. They also had fiascos in other colonised countries eg Algeria. That didn't mean that they were unable to return to Vietnam as part of a western alliance, but chose not to.

 

The South Koreans were a force to be feared in Vietnam.

 

However, I doubt either would wish to be involved in a China vs America conflict now. I can't see any benefit to either in doing so.

The French were wise in not going back.  They did not want to be embarrassed again.  This does not preclude them from offering a semblance of support for the U.S. and her allies if things boil over into a conflict with China.  Much depends on who is the French president at the time.

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can only hope that it turns out badly for Xi.

However, a chaotic China would be catastrophic for the West, now that we are so dependent on Chinese exploited workers for so much of what we consume.

It would be worse than catastrophic for NZ that depends on China far too much for overseas income, and probably Australia as well if they can't sell dirt to China any more.

Maybe you have not noticed the shift.  More nations are in the process of decoupling from China with major corporations moving some of their operations to Viet Nam, India and elsewhere.  Some have cut their ties entirely. The rift between Australia and China is nothing new.  The iron ore and other minerals will not rot.  Sooner or latter other buyers will show up.  New Zealand has only themselves to blame.  They have alienated many of their western-oriented allies.

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm well aware of the French in Indo China, and the Dien Bien Phu disaster. They also had fiascos in other colonised countries eg Algeria. That didn't mean that they were unable to return to Vietnam as part of a western alliance, but chose not to.

 

The South Koreans were a force to be feared in Vietnam.

 

However, I doubt either would wish to be involved in a China vs America conflict now. I can't see any benefit to either in doing so.

South Korea's growing trade deficit with China is causing problems for the Yoon Suk Yeol government and China is not happy with South Korea's improving relationship with the U.S.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/whats-causing-rise-china-south-korea-tensions

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It depends on the nature of the conflict in SEA.

 

If China attempted invasion of Taiwan, it would go very badly for them.

Not just badly, but most likely a disaster.  Even if an invasion were successful, the toll on its military would make it difficult to both maintain an effective occupation and maintain law and order back on the mainland. .  Their economy would be in shambles with vital imports of foodstuffs seriously curtailed possibly causing anarchy among a hungry population.

The Chinese economy is much worse shape than many realize.

Many provincial government treasuries are depleted and they are saddled with an unbelievable amount of debt.  Chances of the central government bailing them out are slim.  China's BRI is not doing well either.  Italy is pulling out.  The CPEC highway servicing the Pakistani port of Gwadar is under attack by the Taliban.  Back in Afghanistan, the Tailban are having second thoughts of cooperating with China.  If you add this all up with the property sector defaults and commercial/shadow banking problems it doesn't look good for Xi and his CCP.

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The US only fights the little guys. For 2023, Iran is ranked 17 in military power in the world. 

How many wars do you think the US can fight at the same time?

How much will you bet that if he US attacks Iran, China will take the opportunity to take Taiwan . Russia  consolidate its borders and who knows who else take what else. Perhaps North korea make a move on the south? 

The US, unless it is existential would never get in a major war without a quick exit strategy if nessacery. 

All these things a war gamed out.  

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.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What strength would that be?

 

Why do you think Canada, Japan, UK, France would join a conflict in SEA? They are already struggling to supply Ukraine, and in the case of Britain, how would they even get to SEA? They no longer have bases there and their navy isn't much any more. Only the US has the naval capacity and I doubt enough spare capacity for Canadians, Brits etc.

Japan is still basically a self defense force, and too close to China to go far. Sth Korea? Unlikely as they have a nuclear armed enemy to the north

 

Worth remembering Canada, France and Britain did not join the war in Vietnam.

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. 

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Since you asked, if someone was shooting at me I'd try and shoot them. I wouldn't bomb 7,000 kids to death just because they got in the way. Would you?

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

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo, how many kids is the price? 50,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, all of them? When is enough enough?

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

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You need to provide proof of that or its not true. The so called "proof" in the big hospital was just pathetic and no one that actually knows what a command center looks like believed it.

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

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would consider it the precurser to WW3, which IMO is inevitable.

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.

20 hours ago, placnx said:

Your link is from October 11th. Opinions taken early on do not reflect what has happened in the two months of Israel's bombing, etc. Opinion in the US, particularly among younger people currently opposes the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Germany & UK still support Israel, for now.

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. 

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There's nothing to understand, he's just doing his usual bit of trolling.

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.

3 minutes ago, liddelljohn said:

So long as more religious  Fanatics of all kinds die  who cares   , we are better off without them all  ,religion is the worst thing humans invented ,,, there are enough problems in the world without fantasy bull<deleted>

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.

3 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Yes. 

 

Parking your naval forces "only for patrolling" at Pearl Harbor comes to my mind.

 

The same with the Cuban crisis.

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?

53 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Quote from source :

 

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210112-israel-adds-yemen-to-its-active-combat-fronts/

 

 

The transformation of Yemen into a new arena with Israel means that it will be joining the Iranian “circle of fire” against Israel, especially since the latter has been operating in the Red Sea for years, preventing the smuggling of Iranian weapons and protecting Israeli cargo ships.

 

Israeli submarines are operating 1,000 kilometres from Tel Aviv, and it is true that they do not sail underwater in the Gulf, but they operate off the Yemeni coast, and they are on alert. This is especially after Iran’s movements in the region, as it may try to attack them from Yemen or Iraq.

 

It is no longer a secret that the UAE and Israel are planning to establish joint intelligence bases on the island of Socotra, 350 kilometres from the coast of Yemen, to collect information on maritime transport in the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa and Egypt.

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.

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

My post was a joke.

 

I was trying to point out that the Houthis are making unprovoked attacks on Israel.

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.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ever heard of sarcasm?

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.

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Obviously,  the Houthis are attacking Israel because of years of occupation of Houthia by Israel.

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

10 hours ago, placnx said:

When we end up alienating the whole world over our unquestioning support of Israel and arrogant vetoes, let's hope that we find a way to be forgiven.

"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

15 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

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.

"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.

16 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

To imply that the Vietnam War was a "win" for the US in any sense of the word is downright ludicrous.

"You win some, you lose some" might have been a fair assessment of the US Military in the past, but since 1945 it has been all losses in every major conflict they've been involved in.

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.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. It's not at all surprising that they "co operate" with America on that, as they have their own claims in the sea that China does not recognise.

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?

On 12/4/2023 at 3:49 PM, soalbundy said:

All conflicts have different qualities of gains and losses, ever since Lawrence of Arabia it was clear that the middle East is a riddle trapped in an enigma. Palestine was only trouble for the British with no promise of gain. Kenya had the Mau Mau uprising which didn't have popular support and was brutally put down by British troops who also resorted to torture and murder, there was gain to be had there, conflicts have their own logic. The Arabs are only united in their religion which has caused them to remain static in their development, once a beacon of advanced knowledge in mathematics, science and medicine, they have made backward steps united only in there hatred of the west on whose progress they now rely on. The state of Israel with its European educated populace is an island of progress in between backward looking states who, instead of seeking to benefit from the progress of their neighbour seek to eradicate it, the ferocity of the conflict should be understood from this angle.

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. 

1 hour ago, Lee65 said:

Hard to find anything healthful or of good value in 7-11.

 

 

 

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.