1 minute ago, Bill said:

"Hey, the TRA says we have to!”

The TRA: required to do something, which isn’t specified, so long as the President doesn’t do something unilaterally w/o the consent of Congress. 

Provide for the defense is ambiguous.   The ambiguity lies in direct action.  Come on Bill.  

1 hour ago, barho said:

Yeah, it really was great watching our country fall in line with a dictator that literally kills all of his opposition.

He deleted his post

46 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

I heard Donald Trump has severe advanced dementia!

You're responding to somebody with a severe substance abuse issue

11 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

 

• Disagreement with Pentagon view:

  While Minihan's concerns are considered serious by some, the Department of Defense has stated that his memo does not reflect the official assessment of China's intentions, suggesting that war is not a likely scenario. 

Pentagon did publicly disagree with his statements going public while the Navy war gamed 2026 and air university has 2025-32.

 

Consensus is 26-27 as the most likely window.

27 minutes ago, BBE said:

No, Taiwan has the bulk of chip foundress and has a defense agreement codified in law which requires our support. 

Ukraine is just not giving Putin what he wants. 

If you can't see the differences then you are rightfully personally invested in Ukraine. 

1) the TRA is ambiguous on purpose, also Ukraine has lots of untapped LNG, which Putin having wouldn’t be good, because we kind of want to be king of LNG, which gives us geopolitical leverage against Russia. Not to mention the massive agricultural industry, and in case you haven’t noticed when commodity prices go haywire Americans make dumb decisions.
2)You could say Taiwan is not just giving Xi what he wants. 
 

You’re trying to do mental gymnastics and say one isn’t the other so you can feel good about your poor choices in voting. As it turns out your poor choice in voting was just a poor choice in voting. 
 

3 minutes ago, BBE said:

Provide for the defense is ambiguous.   The ambiguity lies in direct action.  Come on Bill.  

So what does the TRA codify that we have to provide, exactly?

Just now, BBE said:

Pentagon did publicly disagree with his statements going public while the Navy war gamed 2026 and air university has 2025-32.

 

Consensus is 26-27 as the most likely window.

Consensus you say? Who this time, Capt Crunch? 

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

1) the TRA is ambiguous on purpose, also Ukraine has lots of untapped LNG, which Putin having wouldn’t be good, because we kind of want to be king of LNG, which gives us geopolitical leverage against Russia. Not to mention the massive agricultural industry, and in case you haven’t noticed when commodity prices go haywire Americans make dumb decisions.
2)You could say Taiwan is not just giving Xi what he wants. 
 

You’re trying to do mental gymnastics and say one isn’t the other so you can feel good about your poor choices in voting. As it turns out your poor choice in voting was just a poor choice in voting. 
 

Not really.  Not even close.  

Ukraine is not the same strategically or diplomatically to Taiwan.  Taiwan provides semiconductor chips.  Ukraine has Natural gas reserves that might come on line when?  And affect the US how?  Especially given that Europe was getting their LNG from Russia prior to Ukraine.   

And China is the biggest threat.

 

It has  nothing to do with who I voted for.  I have been against involvement in Ukraine from day 1.

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

So what does the TRA codify that we have to provide, exactly?

The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan"

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Consensus you say? Who this time, Capt Crunch? 

People more in tune with it than you or I.  It was being actively discussed at AFNORTH and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center requirements branch for research and development as early as 2023.

Just now, BBE said:

Not really.  Not even close.  

Ukraine is not the same strategically or diplomatically to Taiwan.  Taiwan provides semiconductor chips.  Ukraine has Natural gas reserves that might come on line when?  And affect the US how?  Especially given that Europe was getting their LNG from Russia prior to Ukraine.   

And China is the biggest threat.

 

It has  nothing to do with who I voted for.  I have been against involvement in Ukraine from day 1.

And where is Europe getting their LNG from, now? The fact that you can’t see the strategic value of petrochemicals shows how little you understand where our place needs to be. Did you ever stop and think about how China wants to secure petrochemical shipping routes through SE Asia, and having more allied petrochemical production helps counter China?

 

The fact that you keep going on about just Taiwan shows how superficial your knowledge is of the region. As if China is only going to make a play on Taiwan when they do make a play. 
 

You keep trying to make salient points, but the only thing you showcase is your own density. 

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan"

Yeah, and what specifically are the articles and what specifically is the quantity to be provided?

 

Is any of that actually spelled out, or is it just… open to interpretation and left ambiguous?

I’m sure there will be many candidates that come to light, but one of the most consequential failures of the Biden administration was to allow the bromance between Putin & Xi. That guaranteed either Putin wins or total nuclear annihilation. Europe needs NATO to counter just Putin, they can’t win by themselves, much less with China backing Russia.

7 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I’m sure there will be many candidates that come to light, but one of the most consequential failures of the Biden administration was to allow the bromance between Putin & Xi. That guaranteed either Putin wins or total nuclear annihilation. Europe needs NATO to counter just Putin, they can’t win by themselves, much less with China backing Russia.

Do you think that PRC and Russian relations just materialized out of thin air or something?

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

And where is Europe getting their LNG from, now? The fact that you can’t see the strategic value of petrochemicals shows how little you understand where our place needs to be. Did you ever stop and think about how China wants to secure petrochemical shipping routes through SE Asia, and having more allied petrochemical production helps counter China?

 

The fact that you keep going on about just Taiwan shows how superficial your knowledge is of the region. As if China is only going to make a play on Taiwan when they do make a play. 
 

You keep trying to make salient points, but the only thing you showcase is your own density. 

No, Taiwan is the first domino.  Without the Strait, China loses advantage.

China has to control the Strait for their routes.  Hence why 7th fleet is so focused on maintaining the Strait open.

18 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yeah, and what specifically are the articles and what specifically is the quantity to be provided?

 

Is any of that actually spelled out, or is it just… open to interpretation and left ambiguous?

Still more than any agreement with Ukraine.   Do you want a specific dollar amount?  

Or would a reasonable interpretation of sufficient self dense be to maintain sovereignty.  

 

Now who is being obtuse?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Bill said:

And where is Europe getting their LNG from, now? The fact that you can’t see the strategic value of petrochemicals shows how little you understand where our place needs to be. Did you ever stop and think about how China wants to secure petrochemical shipping routes through SE Asia, and having more allied petrochemical production helps counter China?

 

The fact that you keep going on about just Taiwan shows how superficial your knowledge is of the region. As if China is only going to make a play on Taiwan when they do make a play. 
 

You keep trying to make salient points, but the only thing you showcase is your own density. 

Will Europe go back to Russian gas if Ukraine is taken?  Germany might.  What other market outside of China will take it?

India?  Unlikely.  South America is pretty well supplied by Mexico and Venezuela.   

Africa?  No real economy there to soak that up.

So, tell me, where does the gas go?

4 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

His visible disgust in the room, followed soon after by the tweet of him applauding Trump's actions was some real Il Duce ha sempre ragione stuff. 

 

30 minutes ago, BBE said:

No, Taiwan is the first domino.  Without the Strait, China loses advantage.

China has to control the Strait for their routes.  Hence why 7th fleet is so focused on maintaining the Strait open.

Yeah if you think only one domino is going to tip at once you have no idea what you’re talking about. 

29 minutes ago, BBE said:

Still more than any agreement with Ukraine.   Do you want a specific dollar amount?  

Or would a reasonable interpretation of sufficient self dense be to maintain sovereignty.  

 

Now who is being obtuse?

It’s a simple question and a specific follow up.
 

What specific equipment and in what specific quantity?

25 minutes ago, BBE said:

Will Europe go back to Russian gas if Ukraine is taken?  Germany might.  What other market outside of China will take it?

India?  Unlikely.  South America is pretty well supplied by Mexico and Venezuela.   

Africa?  No real economy there to soak that up.

So, tell me, where does the gas go?

China will take it so they don’t have to fight with the rest of Asia for the ME’s production. 
 

It’s not that hard of a concept, but it apparently is for you. 

 

5 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Vance's point was fair, 4 years of ripping Putin got us to where we were on 1/20. A never ending slaughter of Ukrainians. I got Zelenskyy wants every point made the way he thinks they should be made, again, I sympathize with the guy, but that's not the way the world works. His country is dependent on US and others to survive and posturing is not doing Ukraine any good.

4 years of ripping Putin didn’t get us to where we are.  Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants to remake the Soviet Union.  This notion that "oh maybe if we had said nicer things about Putin then he wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine” is nonsense. 
If any past actions got us to where we are today, it was Obama not doing anything after Putin invaded Crimea.  You can’t say "x is a red line” and then when x happens, do nothing.   All that does is invite the aggressor to be more aggressive.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

You're such a little sniveling beech. Seriously what a pathetic excuse for an adult you are. 

HAHAHAHHAAHAHA  someone needs to take their meds tonight. Enjoy the mental breakdown over a tweet.