User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 7:54:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheOtherDave]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DC2FA5: The fact that the politicians and brass discuss war with China as a foregone conclusion should enrage the American populace. We are already at war with China but only one side is fighting. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 7:55:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Well, if we put any more people there the island might tip over. Logistics, bro.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 7:58:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DC2FA5: The fact that the politicians and brass discuss war with China as a foregone conclusion should enrage the American populace. This. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 8:22:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: Depends on what you mean by "do this for a living." Given that Congress has slashed the Army's budget and increased those of the other services, I would think that it's pretty clear what the people who do this for a living are up to. Our role is cheaper. That certainly does not equate being part of the plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 8:38:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By steve_n_houston: Why can't we be ready sooner? Rainbow flags on backorder? Because Xiden is bought and paid for to not do anything. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 8:51:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Our role is cheaper. Given personnel costs and increasingly sophisticated combat systems I don't think that's true. Right now the Army is being ground between the desire to have 1,000,000 personnel (50% of all uniformed personnel) and also increasingly specialized, sophisticated units. The backdrop is a defense budget that is falling in both real and nominal terms, and an Army budget that is collapsing in inflation adjusted terms. To put it in perspective, the inflation adjusted Army budget has fallen by something like 22% in the last 5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 9:03:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: Given personnel costs and increasingly sophisticated combat systems I don't think that's true. Right now the Army is being ground between the desire to have 1,000,000 personnel (50% of all uniformed personnel) and also increasingly specialized, sophisticated units. The backdrop is a defense budget that is falling in both real and nominal terms, and an Army budget that is collapsing in inflation adjusted terms. To put it in perspective, the inflation adjusted Army budget has fallen by something like 22% in the last 5 years. That's not just the army. However, ARSTRUC seems to be heavily slanted towards the Army INDOPACOM mission, which would be weird if they had none. A shrinking budget is definitely another reason to stop giving our shit away. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 9:50:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Thats not just the army. However, ARSTRUC seems to be heavily slanted towards the Army INDOPACOM mission, which would be weird if they had none. I've never argued that the Army doesn't have a role in the Pacific, in fact, I've been consistent that it has a large role albeit one that is largely a supporting role. Most of the nations key enablers rest in the Army, whether that is TSCs, divers for horizontal engineering projects, railroad troops, etc. The problem is deciding how much risk to buy in order to pivot to the Pacific. If the Army decided, today, that 100% of all their efforts would be against China, they would divest of all 9 ABCTs and use the savings to buy LSVs for intratheater transport. But they aren't going to do that, because we can't be 100% certain that China is the only risk, and because rebuilding those capabilities after losing them would be almost impossible. As for the other services, their budgets are going up because they have a much larger direct combat role to be played in the Pacific. Naval battles, unlike land battles, often hinge on decisive confrontations, so winning the first missile salvo is probably the single most critical mission for a war with China. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 9:56:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: so winning the first missile salvo is probably the single most critical mission for a war with China. We already know that is unlikely to happen. Therefore the Army has a much larger role playing the long game. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:06:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: We already know that is unlikely to happen. Therefore the Army has a much larger role playing the long game. What long game? If the USN can't get sea control then the Army isn't going to be doing anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:09:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: What long game? If the USN can't get sea control then the Army isn't going to be doing anything. Local sea control. The SCS. The Army and Marines will be taking land and setting ground based fires, chewing into the A2AD bubble. Prepo'ing ADA across the Pacific would be a much better outcome than burning everything in Ukraine for no effects. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:24:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Local sea control. The SCS. The Army and Marines will be taking land and setting ground based fires, chewing into the A2AD bubble. The issue I have with this line of thinking is that we are looking at WWII and how we initially failed... we (and allies) failed to defend our outposts in Singapore, Philippines, Wake, etc. We managed to prevent SLOCs between the US and Australia from being severed. Then, we used our massive industrial capacity and huge manpower reserves to push the Japanese back to Japan. The problem with this is that, in a future war with China, we are both the smaller, and less industrialized country. Yes, we produce a lot of manufactured goods, but we cannot produce a similar quantity of military supplies, particularly ships. A lot of people like to argue that we can simply bottle the Chinese up by interdicting the Straits of Malacca. The whole reason PACOM is now INDOPACOM is because China has access to the Indian Ocean through allies that they've spent decades cultivating. In other words, it's entirely possible for China to outproduce us over a long period of time, which makes the prospect of getting localized sea control much more daunting than it was in WWII. We are, in many ways, looking at the American experience of WWII, rather than the Japanese, which might be more instructive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:28:29 PM EDT
[#13]
As long as we have an asshat and a whore in the damn watts house and the congress critters are what they are and do what they do, we will *NEVER* be prepared for *ANYTHING*.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:28:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: The issue I have with this line of thinking is that we are looking at WWII and how we initially failed... we (and allies) failed to defend our outposts in Singapore, Philippines, Wake, etc. We managed to prevent SLOCs between the US and Australia from being severed. Then, we used our massive industrial capacity and huge manpower reserves to push the Japanese back to Japan. The problem with this is that, in a future war with China, we are both the smaller, and less industrialized country. Yes, we produce a lot of manufactured goods, but we cannot produce a similar quantity of military supplies, particularly ships. A lot of people like to argue that we can simply bottle the Chinese up by interdicting the Straits of Malacca. The whole reason PACOM is now INDOPACOM is because China has access to the Indian Ocean through allies that they've spent decades cultivating. In other words, it's entirely possible for China to outproduce us over a long period of time, which makes the prospect of getting localized sea control much more daunting than it was in WWII. We are, in many ways, looking at the American experience of WWII, rather than the Japanese, which might be more instructive. Well guess what? There isn't much else we can do about it. So here we are. There are a whole lot of islands being prepped right now for what you claim is an untenable strategy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:39:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Biden's only goal is to appeal to Karen from the Suburbs and her college-aged children, none of whom knows where Guam is, much less that it is American soil requiring our defense. Karen and offspring want unlimited abortion, Tik Tok, wine and weed, free healthcare, no student loan debt, diversity, men prentending to be women, dogs instead of kids, and more diversity, not war, treaties, or working from an office.
Hence, Guam is expendable. As are NATO allies, and Taiwan. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:58:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Well guess what? There isn't much else we can do about it. So here we are. There are a whole lot of islands being prepped right now for what you claim is an untenable strategy. History has shown that land forces, cut off from naval support, don't do well in the Pacific. I don't see that anything has changed that would make it different this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 10:59:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Oddly enough, the people that do this for a living disagree. Do you spend a lot of time with Admirals? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:04:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: History has shown that land forces, cut off from naval support, don't do well in the Pacific. I don't see that anything has changed that would make it different this time. That's the only reason to conduct an incremental advance, so you don't get cut off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:04:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Do you spend a lot of time with Admirals? I spend a lot more time with people working this than you do. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:07:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LurchAddams: These are the same idiots that couldn't forecast: - Saddam's invasion of Kuwait - 9/11 attack on NYC - Russia's invasion of Ukraine - Hamas attack on Israel... Now they want us to be scared because may be prepared to attack, three years from now?  Yeah, they'e shithead idiots and missed all of those things. No idea. They didn't see any of that coming, the idiots!!! Lol. |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:07:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Tyvar]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: The issue I have with this line of thinking is that we are looking at WWII and how we initially failed... we (and allies) failed to defend our outposts in Singapore, Philippines, Wake, etc. We managed to prevent SLOCs between the US and Australia from being severed. Then, we used our massive industrial capacity and huge manpower reserves to push the Japanese back to Japan. The problem with this is that, in a future war with China, we are both the smaller, and less industrialized country. Yes, we produce a lot of manufactured goods, but we cannot produce a similar quantity of military supplies, particularly ships. A lot of people like to argue that we can simply bottle the Chinese up by interdicting the Straits of Malacca. The whole reason PACOM is now INDOPACOM is because China has access to the Indian Ocean through allies that they've spent decades cultivating. In other words, it's entirely possible for China to outproduce us over a long period of time, which makes the prospect of getting localized sea control much more daunting than it was in WWII. We are, in many ways, looking at the American experience of WWII, rather than the Japanese, which might be more instructive. The goal of all this is to distribute offensive weapons systems so enough survive the initial chinese barrage to make a counter attack at the exposed Chinese infrastructure. The vast bulk of China's manufacturing capacity is located in now located in its the coastal belt which is exposed. The US strategy involves crippling that capacity while preserving its own capacity which is not vulnerable to such strikes, barring a nuclear exchange. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:09:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By destaccado: Why would we be enraged? The American populace should be enraged that people without a clue continually chime in on topics they know next to nothing about yet since it's the majority of the populace; I guess they can't be. China has a large surplus male population until roughly 2030. China wants Taiwan. China is rapidly building every type of ship they need to take Taiwan and every missile to make our Navy irrelevant near their borders at an extremely rapid pace. Maybe you can explain what they're doing that for to the rest of us? They're building a shit load of landing craft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:10:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Probably numbers and existing commitments. As I understand it Patriot is one of the most heavily committed assets in the Army in terms of units deployed at any given time vs. units available. Building them fast in the short term is not feasible because we have not funded the program at a level that supports industry building that capacity. Even if we had the hardware, manning the batteries is going to be a problem with the present recruiting situation. A diverse manning with single digit avsab scores will do great. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:13:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: That's the only reason to conduct an incremental advance, so you don't get cut off. This is like thinking the FLOT is a solid line when it isn't, except in the ocean where there isn't a FLOT to begin with. Have the Marines solved their logistical concerns yet or are they still teaching wild pig butchering at TBS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:15:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: This is like thinking the FLOT is a solid line when it isn't, except in the ocean where there isn't a FLOT to begin with. Have the Marines solved their logistical concerns yet or are they still teaching wild pig butchering at TBS? I don't know, ask them. They're busy clearing ports and prepping ground in the south Pacific. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:15:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: The goal of all this is to distribute offensive weapons systems so enough survive the initial chinese barrage to make a counter attack at the exposed Chinese infrastructure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: The goal of all this is to distribute offensive weapons systems so enough survive the initial chinese barrage to make a counter attack at the exposed Chinese infrastructure. This part I get. Originally Posted By Tyvar: The vast bulk of China's manufacturing capacity is located in now located in its the coastal belt which is exposed. The US strategy involves crippling that capacity while preserving its own capacity which is not vulnerable to such strikes, barring a nuclear exchange. No country has ever destroyed enemy manufacturing capacity with conventional bombing of any kind. It's never happened. You can strangle SLOCs to keep them from getting raw materials, which makes sense, but isn't a panacea here. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:16:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I don't know, ask them. They're busy clearing ports and prepping ground in the south Pacific. In preparation for an unsupported island hopping campaign? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:19:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: In preparation for an unsupported island hopping campaign? Imagine, for a second, that you aren't as up to speed on any of this as you think. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:30:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Imagine, for a second, that you aren't as up to speed on any of this as you think. When I run the things you say past other people in the other services, they think it's a bad joke, and they start talking about things like the amount of lift required. It would take something like every C17 in service to deploy a single MDTF from JBLM to Japan. Or you could do it with watercraft but it would take weeks and nothing else would move, which means forward deployed forces would be on their own. For weeks. You are the only person I see talking about this, in this way. I see the Army arguing that it can provide the contact layer on the first island chain. Sure. But moving around? Pushing forward? We didn't do that in WWII for years, and we had a larger Army in 1942 than we do today. Doing all this with half the USN on the bottom? The question comes down to whether you think land based fires can trap the PLAN inside the first island chain. I don't think that's even the goal, they are there to canalize and disrupt, not win the fight on their own. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:31:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HIMARS13A]
[#30]
Double.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:35:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: The goal of all this is to distribute offensive weapons systems so enough survive the initial chinese barrage to make a counter attack at the exposed Chinese infrastructure. The vast bulk of China's manufacturing capacity is located in now located in its the coastal belt which is exposed. The US strategy involves crippling that capacity while preserving its own capacity which is not vulnerable to such strikes, barring a nuclear exchange. The Army has at present essentially nothing with the range to attack Chinese industry and that’s not going to change in a decade. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:37:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: This part I get. No country has ever destroyed enemy manufacturing capacity with conventional bombing of any kind. It's never happened. You can strangle SLOCs to keep them from getting raw materials, which makes sense, but isn't a panacea here. Would the destruction of the 3 Gorges dam have a significant impact? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:37:29 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: In preparation for an unsupported island hopping campaign? The US military is clearing islands that we use to use throughout the pacific as we speak. Old runways and bases being rebuilt. We are building new bases in the Philippines. If you had any kinda clue on the amount of assets we have moved to the pacific you wouldn’t be making the statements that you have. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:39:58 PM EDT
[#34]
We should offer all of Taiwan asylum
kick out all the illegal aliens |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:41:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The Army has at present essentially nothing with the range to attack Chinese industry and that’s not going to change in a decade. Given our leadership's relationship with China would expect us to surrender and they make a deal |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:43:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: The US military is clearing islands that we use to use throughout the pacific as we speak. Old runways and bases being rebuilt. We are building new bases in the Philippines. If you had any kinda clue on the amount of assets we have moved to the pacific you wouldn’t be making the statements that you have. I'm aware of that. But tell me with a straight face that the USN could lose sea control and those bases could be supported. Or that the Army and Marines could, together, prevent the PLAN from leaving the first island chain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:45:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Admiral, trannies and fat dope heads only go so fast.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:45:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: The US military is clearing islands that we use to use throughout the pacific as we speak. Old runways and bases being rebuilt. We are building new bases in the Philippines. If you had any kinda clue on the amount of assets we have moved to the pacific you wouldn’t be making the statements that you have. Is the Philippine war against communist guerrillas any concern to our increasing our presence there? I don't know a whole lot about the situation but it doesn't seem real stable in part of the Philippines. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:46:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: Would the destruction of the 3 Gorges dam have a significant impact? The Chinese have been clear that destroying that dam would be a cause for nuclear retaliation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:46:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I spend a lot more time with people working this than you do. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Do you spend a lot of time with Admirals? I spend a lot more time with people working this than you do. I know a guy whose day job for many years was trying to sell the Army’s relevance to a naval campaign to Congress and the Secretary. One of many differences between you and he is that he knew it was a pitch, and a fight. Also, he knows what’s going to happen to you when the Pacific Fleet is exhausted and the Atlantic Fleet is coming around Cape Horn. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:48:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: Would the destruction of the 3 Gorges dam have a significant impact? Chinas stated policy is that an attack on the dam will result in a nuclear exchange. Also, Army doesn’t have the reach, nor is there any plan to give them the reach, to destroy that dam. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:56:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: The Chinese have been clear that destroying that dam would be a cause for nuclear retaliation. Well, you're painting a fairly bleak picture of the outcome of this conflict. Their fist strike would sink half of our Navy. Our periphery island forces would be hanging in the wind like Wake Island, maybe literally Wake Island. Our industrial capacity would try to build up, over a year, to defend and invasion of our mainland? Why the fuck not? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:59:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: Well, you're painting a fairly bleak picture of the outcome of this conflict. Their fist strike would sink half of our Navy. Our periphery island forces would be hanging in the wind like Wake Island, maybe literally Wake Island. Our industrial capacity would try to build up, over a year, to defend and invasion of our mainland? Why the fuck not? Because that conflict is a fuck ton more bleak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2024 11:59:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I know a guy whose day job for many years was trying to sell the Army’s relevance to a naval campaign to Congress and the Secretary. One of many differences between you and he is that he knew it was a pitch, and a fight. Also, he knows what’s going to happen to you when the Pacific Fleet is exhausted and the Atlantic Fleet is coming around Cape Horn. I know a guy that never served a single day In his life, but leverages outdated third hand info and questionable personal relationships to try and be a subject matter expert in literally every military topic posted on an internet message board. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:02:04 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: I'm aware of that. But tell me with a straight face that the USN could lose sea control and those bases could be supported. Or that the Army and Marines could, together, prevent the PLAN from leaving the first island chain. There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. I don’t see how China could currently take full control over the first island chain. It’s too big and they would be fighting us, Japan, Philippines, Australia and most likely South Korea. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:05:19 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. This is my understanding as well, but there is someone else in this thread that has a different understanding. Originally Posted By GoldenMead: I don’t see how China could currently take full control over the first island chain. It’s too big and they would be fighting us, Japan, Philippines, Australia and most likely South Korea. They don't have to take control of it, all they have to do is sever it from resupply to make it irrelevant. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:05:30 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Chinas stated policy is that an attack on the dam will result in a nuclear exchange. Also, Army doesn’t have the reach, nor is there any plan to give them the reach, to destroy that dam. I didn't mean the Army. I'll ask you the same question. If a Chinese strike takes down half of our Navy and our island forces are for the most part cut off and destroyed, how far could they go? What's at stake? Grand hegemony over the Pacific? In your mind is a Chinese invasion of the US Science Fiction? Is that laughable? At what point is it worth it to break the dam? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:08:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I didn't mean the Army. I'll ask you the same question. If a Chinese strike takes down half of our Navy and our island forces are for the most part cut off and destroyed, how far could they go? What's at stake? Grand hegemony over the Pacific? In your mind is a Chinese invasion of the US Science Fiction? Is that laughable? At what point is it worth it to break the dam? I'll butt in (though the question wasn't towards me) and say that the Chinese goal here is to bring countries into their orbit. Finlandization, if you will. They don't have to fight a war to do that, and if they fight and win countries like South Korea and possibly the Philippines will likely come to some sort of terms. The Japanese likely will not, but a prolonged naval blockade against them would cripple them into irrelevance... or force nuclear proliferation and confrontation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:09:22 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 9divdoc: We should offer all of Taiwan asylum kick out all the illegal aliens Unlikely Democrats will accept those terms https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Politics/story?id=2344929&page=1  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:11:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: This is my understanding as well, but there is someone else in this thread that has a different understanding. Not at all, that's my understanding and indicative of what I stated. You are just incapable of thinking outside of absolutes and immediately devolve into a black or white thought process. If you assumed war with China wasn't going to be a joint combined effort, well...that's on you. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
