South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[carl]

Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese. We weren't supposed to fly over. Unfortunately, there were around 40 or so South Vietnamese agents that were still in the DRV when the agreement went into effect. The USAF guys wanted an exception made so they could be extracted. It was not allowed. So we left them there and all were picked up. I am actually not embarrassed by that. I am ashamed. Then there were the 3 Marines we left on Koh Tang Island. I am ashamed about that too. An exagerrated (sic) sense of shame I guess.

Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.

Thank you for that. Now I know.

Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere.

I don't know how to respond to that. I am certain you know about logistics trains, sea and air and how those change with distance over which something is to be supported. You know about American dependence upon air refueling, how carriers can't go swanning off by themselves, that VLS systems can't be reloaded at sea. You know all that stuff and all the rest inside and out. Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.

Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?

It was a straight line that was yours to use if you cared to. You did.

Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF.

Ok. I get it now.