Re: Oil Peak, read and weep (seriously) - for Don Geddis

On Jun 15, 11:57 pm, "travis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <travis...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

So you admit that you completely fabricated it?

The predicate for that would be you completely fabricating the ICBM
thing first. So sure; you're a liar of the first degree. Hey, your
words, trav.

Taiwan is China's property or ours. It could come to a
shooting match.

The US is far too busy in the middle east to worry about taiwan. And
the longer this takes the harder it will be for the US to keep control
there.

To a certain extent, even you would have to realize the smartest thing
for the US to do would be to withdraw it's aircraft carriers to it's
own shores for defense, rather than floating them during a peak oil
scenario.

Finally - something worth responding to. Frankly trav - the resources
that taiwan really has basically amounts to farmland and fishing. Food
production. If there was ever a war which brought the standard of
living/technology/energy production capabilities of taiwan down, it
would revert to what it was before the 50s - an island of aboriginal
tribes.

Sigh. Jeezus. What resources did Saipan or Iwo Jima have?

Well, certainly given the number of casualties, the necessity and long-
term significance of the island's capture to the outcome of the war
was a contentious issue from the beginning, and remains disputed. As
early as April 1945 retired Chief of Naval Operations, William V.
Pratt, asked in Newsweek magazine about the "expenditure of manpower
to acquire a small, God-forsaken island, useless to the Army as a
staging base and useless to the Navy as a fleet base ... [one] wonders
if the same sort of airbase could not have been reached by acquiring
other strategic localities at lower cost.".

However, one must also consider that the US was at *war* with Japan,
and the Japanese on Iwo Jima had radar and were thus able to notify
their comrades at home of incoming B-29 Superfortresses flying from
the Mariana Islands. Fighter aircraft based on Iwo Jima sometimes
attacked these planes, which were especially vulnerable on their way
to Japan because they were heavily laden with bombs and fuel. Although
the island was used as an air-sea rescue base after its seizure, the
traditional justification for Iwo Jima's strategic importance to the
United States' war effort has been that it provided a landing and
refueling site for American bombers on missions to and from Japan. As
early as March 4, 1945, while fighting was still taking place, the
B-29 bomber Dinah Might of the USAAF 9th Bomb Group reported it was
low on fuel near the island and requested an emergency landing.
Despite enemy fire, the airplane landed on the Allied-controlled
section of the island, without incident, and was serviced, refueled
and departed. In all, 2,251 B-29 Superfortress landings on Iwo Jima
were recorded during the war. (from wikipedia)

I'd say that's a pretty significant fucking reason. Now consider the
relevance of your example to Taiwan - the way in which Iwo Jima was
used by the Japanese and Americans is not possible with Taiwan. For
one, Taiwan isn't "on the way" to China.

Not good places to live during the war. Taiwan has strategic
significance in a resource war, you idiot, NOT BECAUSE OF ITS
RESOURCES.

Let me get this straight - Taiwan, of no geographical military
significance, would be significant in a resource war - but not because
of it's resources.

Are you smoking crack?

Taiwan is worthless. The only reason why it's important now is because
the US wants safe places in Asia to store military power. If the US
completely pulled out of Taiwan china would lose all interest, and you
know it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...the US would not pull out in a resource war in whih
China was a principal. There could very EASILY be a shooting war in
which the army occupied your island...you'd be a fuckin refugee.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Most of Taiwan, as China, is farmland. If China wanted anything from
taiwan it wouldn't make any sense to destroy it. So if you're saying
China would just bomb taiwan as an option in a war with the states to

JFC...you people are incapable of getting it, aren't you?

I do get what you're saying- you're just wrong.

A good thing for you to do would be to look up the historical battles
which Taiwan fought with China. Then go look up all your posts
claiming how Taiwan could fend off any such invasion from China (even
without support from the states). It's not that I don't see a
possibility that there may be garrisons, it's just that you're just
not being very consistent, and you don't seem to understand that I
might be in a location which precludes me having to worry about any
such invasion or occupation during wartime.

And.. it seems to be you who is too stupid to comprehend this, because
it's not the first time you've been told.

It doesn't matter what's ON Taiwan, dude! Taiwan ITSELF has no
significance OTHER than it's a convenient island upon which to attack
China or for China to prevent attacks!

Why not Hainan? Or Japan?

It has the SAME strategic value as all the worthless islands Japan
invaded and we took back during WW2! They are places to land planes,
refuel ships and occupy.

Look at a world map recently? Japan would be a first target for the US
if that's what they wanted; or maybe one of the russian islands.
Irregardless, taiwan is pretty far in; Hanzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo,
Fuzhou; and dozens of other places could easily launch interceptors to
attack any US plane. It doesn't make sense; There is no supply line.
It just isn't feasable. I mean it's nice in theory but in a real war
Taiwan is just not feasable for the USA.

Good lord, learn something about freakin war, for ***'s sake.

Look at a world map recently? There are things you know, just living
here.. that your average school-fed american could never understand.
Just ask Peter, he's an australian. He knows. He's probably sitting
back and laughing at you.

There are things you would know, if you actually lived
in china, which would preclude a lot of the related scenarios you're
bringing up here. It's a lot different than you think. I'm pretty sure
that I'm safe where I am.

Taiwan isn't going to invade anyone. However, if the *** hits the
fan, Taiwan could certainly have the *** bombarded out of it or be
subject to a military invasion. As I told you, it could become a
whole shitload less hospitable than it APPEARS to be based upon how
intrinsically "valuable" you regard its resources as.

Long before I have to worry about anything I'll be living it up in
sweeden, Trav. Or france. Or wherever.

I know the various populations of our major cities.

Then put 2 and 2 together :) I'd rather be in an area trying to feed
100,000 people than 50 million, both with approximately the same
airable land.

Maybe in a place with a relatively recent history of conflict. This
isn't going to be like the civil war, Trav, get far away from where
you are right now.

The government can force you to RATION your own goddamned food! I
mean, one need only look at a relatively BENIGN situation like WW2 to
see the scope and extent of the sovereign's power. Forced rationing
was in effect for any material the government needed. If food
production is soft, the goverment CAN and WILL force you to produce
and hand it over to them. In fact, that would be the most expedient
thing for them to do. It's exactly what I would do.

But for various reasons it won't hit that hard here. And long before
it COULD, it will hit YOU, or I will be where you are first.

Besides the fact that isn't true, it's a pretty weak fucking
argument ;-)

It's completely true.

No it isn't. And, i'm afraid your time is up. It will cost you another
5 dollars to continue arguing with me.

Do not blame us for the reputation you've created for yourself.

Of course I blame "you". Especially the out and out liars like
Goldberg, and even the part time ones like peter and mike. Every time
people like you get shown up you attempt to attack your opponent's
credibility. Sorry but it doesn't work that way - my credibility was
good enough at the beginning of the argument. It's too late to
complain now. Besides - your argument seems to be getting weaker and
weaker - why stop now? I'm interested in seeing just how far you'll
let yourself go on this issue.

-
.