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

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.

I didn't fabricate the ICBM thing...you then ran with that for this
carpet bombing ***.

You seem incapable of grasping that even ONE nuclear accident renders
farms in the affected areas worthless.

Imagine one of China's reactors pulls a Chernobyl and you are
downwind. Let's posit a resource conflict where the US bombs
industrial facilities in China. You are downwind, your farm becomes
toxically contaminated. This isn't a stretch of the imagination by
any means.

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.

What, NOW? Good lord, you can't be this fuckin stupid.

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.

Defense??? Defense against WHOM? We are in DECLINE here, what the
*** good would our carriers do off our OWN shores??!? We have an
ENORMOUS land-based air force that can project air power FAR offshore,
you idiot!

Carriers are about projecting your air power into OTHER people's
countries.

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.".

Ponder or argue the value of the islands all you want to; what
*happened* is that they were hotly contested.

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)

You can spare me the history lesson on things I already know.

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.

Huh??? It surely IS.

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.

Taiwan has IMMENSE geographical military significance, you TOOL.

Are you smoking crack?

You appear to be.

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

Great rebuttal.

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.

Who GIVES A *** about ancient wars!?!?

You are ON the island...that is a DANGEROUS place to be during an
occupation. The army might happen across your little farm AS ARMIES
DO and take everything you have and eat it.

Why not Hainan? Or Japan?

Why not ALL OF THEM? Taiwan is far closer. You could bombard china
with artillery from there.

If you imagine a war taking place between China and the USA, Taiwan is
FRONT ROW.

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.

Horse***, but you are entitled to your stupidity.

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.

That is highly unlikely.

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

LOL. So, you now admit your plans are the same as mine...clown.

Way to concede the whole fucking thing.

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.

Who wouldn't??? That's not the POINT.

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.

I plan to...however, I am not going to put down roots in a front row
seat to a resource war, idiot!

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.

Oh, of course, the genius renli will see it all coming.

If you do, it will be because I told you.

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

I see that you have another reply further down the thread, punk.

So, you owe me $5.

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

Your credibility flat out sucks. Take a poll. And exclude goldbitch
if you like.

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.

Cut the trolling tactics, clown.

Trav
.