twilight2000-digest Tuesday, March 7 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 125 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: China vs. Taiwan RE: Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) RE: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #124 Re: Laws of War Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #124 Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:26:29 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 08:39 AM 3/7/00 -0600, Kevin O'Dell wrote: >I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing China's threat >to invade Taiwan if the continue to try and obtain independence. The man >discussing this was stating how he didn't think that China would follow >through because of the fear that the US would become involved. (Which I >believe that the US would) He was saying that China's military is so >outdated that they would not have a chance to win. But at the same time he >was stating how Chinese nationalism is at a high right now. Which leads me >to believe that with the support of the nation behind them, that they would >be a formidable foe, despite the outdated equipment. They do have the >number in people (possibly equipment. I'm not sure on this) to present a >major threat. I was wanting to hear some other opinions on this. > Their primary problem with Taiwan is that they simply lack the necessary amphibious capability--I think they have like one brigade's worth, or somethign like that. And as mentioned last week I think, they can't count on controllign the air, even without the U.S. getting involved. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:08:20 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: Laws of War <> > The difference there is that when the trials came about, there was no longer > a Nazi Germany. My point in there was that it's usually the VANQUISHED that > get into trouble. The US has never been vanquished (even if considering > Viet Nam a loss, our country was still secure...) and probably won't be in > the foreseeable future. But if we give in to an independent world court, > then our soldiers will be liable to that court for actions during conflicts > where we do prevail. The US is afraid (and I think justly so) that the > losers of conflicts will trump up charges against our soldiers. Or just > anyone in an area where US troops are stationed and doesn't like it. > Granted, the incident (that I'm aware of) in Okinawa was bad, but such a > thing could easily be faked, and then our soldiers have to answer to a court > that isn't bound to the US. We want to keep them under our laws a judicial > prudence. I agree with that. Hitler once said that it doesn't matter who starts the war, because the victor will determine who was at fault. (Not that I support his cause, just an interesting quote.) <> > Just look at Bosnia, and how hard a time we've had at going after the > accused war criminals there. And I'd say that Saddham Hussein has committed > crimes against humanity, but nothing has every been brought about it. Just > some idle talk, by people on the sidelines like us. Now, if we had fully > invaded and occupied Bosnia, or Iraq, like we did Germany after WW2, a lot > more would have and could have been done. If he wasn't killed, I can assure > you that Saddham would be under arrest. A good example I think would be Noriega (Spelling) Kevin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:32:19 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 05:10 PM 3/7/00 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: >Secondly there is China's massive numerical advantage. In any engagement >they will be able to deal the US forces a bloody nose. Now while the US may >well be able to beat them in time during that time loses will be suffered. >Will the US public tolerate their soldiers coming home in body bags during >that period of time? > Why do you expect there to be any land battles? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:43:29 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) At 07:43 PM 3/7/00 GMT, Charles York wrote: > > I seem to recall an earlier incident during a prior election- at that >time, the US Navy did increase its presence in the area, and there was talk >of delivering anti missile systems to Taiwan (don't know if they were). >This would seem to hint at a US strategy for intervention: > >1) Treaty-bound to assist in Taiwan's defense, the US wouldn't ignore the >crisis, but, as is consistent with earlier policy, would refrain from using >ground troops. > I don't think there's any such treaty. There is a vague U.S. law saying we'll help them defend themselves, I think, but that doesn't necessarily mean active intervention. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:45:31 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) At 07:43 PM 3/7/00 GMT, Charles York wrote: >US policy there eventually strains ties with other NATO allies, who, in >turn, reduce support sent to the US troops in Bosnia (attempting to >influence US policy through stretching the logistics further. *It's not >liekly, but you have to suspend reason somewhere..) > I'm not sure what you mean by this: the U.S. is probably supporting European troops, if anyone's supporting someone else; the U.S. has a much better logistical network. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:46:46 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr What's your evidence for this? >Point two ... So in other words, it's just you're guess, and you're dismissing FBI (not CIA--this isn't the CIA's responsibility, since it's domestic) incompetence as an explanation. >CIA would work toward identifying agents and feeding (selling) them false information, and the FBI would work toward investigating with intent to arrest and prosecute -if allowed. Not incompetence just not creating a greater security liability w/ arrest and prosecution. The FBI is very competent. >Point three ... So in other words, you're guessing again. (True, but an educated guess from unclassified souses.) What is PSG anyway? If it's like most encryption systems, you can't "crack it", because each user has a different key--you have to crack each key individually. >PDG = "Pretty Darn Good" encryption "share-ware" Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:35:54 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan > > >Secondly there is China's massive numerical advantage. In any engagement > >they will be able to deal the US forces a bloody nose. Now while the US may > >well be able to beat them in time during that time loses will be suffered. > >Will the US public tolerate their soldiers coming home in body bags during > >that period of time? > > > Why do you expect there to be any land battles? > > That is true. I could see us fighting another campaign like the last 2. And ending up like the last 2 not having the situation truly solved. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:03:08 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War At 02:57 PM 3/7/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Just look at Bosnia, and how hard a time we've had at going after the >accused war criminals there. When we've gone after them, we haven't had a hard time. It seems though that SFOR troops have been unders orders not to go after them (indeed, at one point war criminals were commuting to and from work each day through checkpoints with their pictures posted on the walls). There are a couple of people who are heavily guarded, and they pose a different problem altogether, but that's not the norm. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:09:02 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 06:46 PM 3/7/00 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott David Orr >What's your evidence for this? >>Point two ... >So in other words, it's just you're guess, and you're dismissing FBI (not >CIA--this isn't the CIA's responsibility, since it's domestic) incompetence >as an explanation. >>CIA would work toward identifying agents and feeding (selling) them false >information, and the FBI would work toward investigating with intent to >arrest and prosecute -if allowed. Not incompetence just not creating a >greater security liability w/ arrest and prosecution. The FBI is very >competent. The CIA would work outside the U.S. Anything inside the U.S.--ALL counterintelligence activities--is FBI or some other domestic agency. The CIA is forbidden by law from operating inside the U.S. > >>Point three ... >So in other words, you're guessing again. >(True, but an educated guess from unclassified souses.) > >What is PSG anyway? If it's >like most encryption systems, you can't "crack it", because each user has a >different key--you have to crack each key individually. >>PDG = "Pretty Darn Good" encryption "share-ware" Is that the same thing as PGP? PGP can't be "cracked" as a whole: each key has to be cracked separately. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:21:15 EST From: GDWGAMES@aol.com Subject: Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #124 In a message dated 00-03-07 17:55:41 EST, you write: << I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing China's threat to invade Taiwan if the continue to try and obtain independence. >> Perhaps you mean "try and _maintain_ independence"? By any rational measure, Taiwan _IS_ independent (although there are some who disagree). LKW *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:38:21 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Laws of War >If Nazi Germany had survived as an unoccupied nation, even if a badly beaten >and smaller one, I'm sure most of the War Crime trials would have no affect. >As it was, many accused have disappeared without facing punishment. One was >even living in Australia with the OZ not doing anything about it for awhile, >not even revoking his passports or keeping him under watch. When it was >finally decided to go get him, he'd disappeared out of the country. >Cor Actually, this is a common misconception. There is an organ of the Australian Federal Police that deals with war crimes and it was radically rebuilt after world war 2 into it's current form. All suspected war criminals are investigated by this group (the name escapes me) but Australian Law has strong protections built into it and none of the suspected war criminals had a decent case against them. That's right, we can't just yank your passport here unless there is strong evidence and on the whole you are talking forty years of elapsed time. If the cases presented against these men had not been so seriously flawed (obviously prepared by people who had little experience in Australian Law) there may well have been more action seen. You will note that it was the Australian forces after WW2 who were the most vocal about initiating the death penalty against Japanese war criminals, there is still a feeling that the Allies were way to soft on the Japanese here. So please don't think that the lack of results indicate a lack of will, it is far more likely that the cases involved were more complex than the media would have you believe. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:50:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: twilight2000-digest V1999 #124 At 07:21 PM 3/7/00 EST, GDWGAMES@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 00-03-07 17:55:41 EST, you write: > ><< I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing China's threat > to invade Taiwan if the continue to try and obtain independence. >> > >Perhaps you mean "try and _maintain_ independence"? By any rational measure, >Taiwan _IS_ independent (although there are some who disagree). > The threat in question was what China would do if Taiwan _declares_ independence, that is moving from a state of de facto independence (with each side claiming to be the legitimate government of all of China) to a state of de jure independence. Taiwan has never attempted to do so in any way; the countries that diplomatically recognize it recognize it, in effect, as the government of all of China. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:09:05 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > > I've already said this once, but if the combantants wear uniforms, YES, the > laws of war apply EVEN IN A CIVIL WAR. It does NOT matter what the > government calls it. Governments often try to argue that they don't have > to follow the rules because it's an itnenral matter, or their just > "terrorists", not soldiers, or what have you, but these sorts of argument > have NO LEGAL SUPPORT. That is untrue. The laws of war depend on International majority. Case in point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community does no see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other laws when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. > > >Think about it a bit. By your definition of uniforms, and we can throw in > >something about there needing to be two nations involved, then the Montana > >Freemen were an opposing army, and the actions there were a war (okay, only > >when shots are fired...) I can get enough people together, put uniforms on, > >declare Sacramento an independant State. The government then must follow > >the "rules" of war when dealing with me. > > Yes, exactly. I can't imagine why it would matter, though, since the > U.S.'s laws for dealing with criminal suspects are in general more strict > than the rules for dealing with POW's. Which is my point. I would be a POW, so must be dealt as a POW (assuming I'm captured.) > > > >And what rules are out there? The only written ones I know about are the > >GC. I'd be surprised if there isn't anything in them covering declarations. > You'd have to ask an expert on that branch of law. > > Scott Orr Which, with the force of conviction that you've put behind your statements and answers, makes you appear to be. If you're not an expert, then don't state your answers as fact, but as an opinion. So, in essence, you don't really know how the laws of war are applied in an international sense, you are just guessing like the rest of us. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:14:07 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) >> I've already said this once, but if the combantants wear uniforms, YES, >the >> laws of war apply EVEN IN A CIVIL WAR. It does NOT matter what the >> government calls it. Governments often try to argue that they don't have >> to follow the rules because it's an itnenral matter, or their just >> "terrorists", not soldiers, or what have you, but these sorts of argument >> have NO LEGAL SUPPORT. > >That is untrue. The laws of war depend on International majority. Case in >point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community does no >see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other laws >when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. >Cor I'll have a little comment here and I have read the Hague and Geneva conventions conventions refering to prisoners. (Note: I'm only refering to these documents, and Poland and the USSR were signitories for T2K purposes) The IRA do not wear uniforms, (they do not have a government in exile either, now I think of it although that makes little difference). By not wearing uniforms they make it impossible for soldiers to prove their combatant status and so have no legal right to fight a war. This is also why the British channel them through civilian courts and prisons. The KLA wore uniforms so they could legally fight. This is the thrust of the argument presented in the document. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:15:15 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) It might just be me being a cynic, but I'd take a different view for point number 1 - that you couldn't trust a media story as far as you could spit. number 2 - a lot of things about counter espionage aren't really common knowledge number 3 - If you use logic where the CIA is concerned you'll always find that you'll end up in a pickle...prime example being Uncle Ho. Ballistics *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:17:18 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War Ahh ok thanks, I figured it was because somewhere it was written that if you didn't win then it wasn't a war :) Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:22:23 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan Also, why would the US step in???? It is still technically a province of mainland China. The US would be stepping into a domestic problem. Would that not technically constitute an invasion of Chinese territory??. The other thing is...why did the US not stop Indonesia entering Timor 20 years ago...Why has it not stopped Russia blowing the kingdom come out of the rebels??...if it went into Taiwan, you may find it opens a large can of worms that would be very difficult to contain. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:24:06 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > I thought the My Lai Massacre resulted in a war crimes trial...I guess I'll > have to go look it up to be sure. Anyone else know? If your refering to the American Platoon that slaughtered an entire village and used a scorched earth policy on it. Then yes it didm from memory the Lt of the platoon is spending (or spent) the remaining years of his life in a military prison. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:25:40 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan > further their aims, and would probably provoke US or Japanes involvement. It > would be a huge mistake for the PRC to attack Taiwan at the present time, in > my opinion. Japan is unable to go to war unless it is to defend itself. Something the Allies had written into the WW2 surrender documents. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:29:14 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Well as an interesting point to note here.....The US was unable to supply combat forces to the East Timor incident, and could only supply the INTERFET forces with logistic support due to it's other current commitments in Europe and elsewhere. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:39:25 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) In a message dated 03/07/2000 11:50:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, chasyork@hotmail.com writes: << I agree with Rob on his assessment that the PRC lacks the resources to support a full invasion of Taiwan. While I've heard some say that they retain the ability to incorporate a number of civilian ships to facilitate an invasion, these would be ill equipped for the task if even a moderate naval force intervened. I seem to recall an earlier incident during a prior election- at that time, the US Navy did increase its presence in the area, and there was talk of delivering anti missile systems to Taiwan (don't know if they were). This would seem to hint at a US strategy for intervention: 1) Treaty-bound to assist in Taiwan's defense, the US wouldn't ignore the crisis, but, as is consistent with earlier policy, would refrain from using ground troops. 2) The US would attempt to deter any seaborne invasion with naval force, at the most, targeting the vulnerability of the civilian ships rather than risk a true naval confrontation. (I have heard that some of the PRC submarines are easily detectable, as poor maintenance & age has made them loud, again, don't know how much truth there is in that... 3) US antimissile resources (land & sea) would be used to reduce the effectiveness of any non-nuclear missile strikes. Expect US air forces to "assist" native pilots enough to retain air supremecy. Other stuff snipped >> My comments and observations: The Republic of China had it's very first open Presidential election back in 1996. One candidate, the incumbent from the Nationalist party was for the status quo, i.e. two states one China. The other candidate from the Democratic Progress Party was for outright independence. This angered the PRC and they threatened some type of action. Both governments went back and forth trading rhetoric. The US sent one or two carrier battle groups into the Taiwan straits just to make sure both sides played nice, but mainly kept an eye on the PRC. Around election day, the PRC conducts a missile "test", claiming it was pre-scheduled and not meant to influence the voters. One missile landed to the north of the island off the coast from the capitol, Taipei. The other landed to the south off Taiwan's main port Kahsioung. The southern missile landed in international waters, but the northern missile landed in Taiwanese waters, creating a ruckus. Luckily calmer heads prevailed. Off the top of my head, PRC equipment is based on older technology, '60's, 70's and 80's. If you recall awhile back the PLA Air Force thread, most of their aircraft are based on old Soviet designs. Although they have purchased a number of modern SU-27s. Their submarine fleet is also older, mostly old Soviet diesel electric boats, with a few nuclear boats and one SSBN. They do have intermediate range ballistic missiles, I do not know how many, but they are supposedly capable of reaching the West Coast of the USA. Ironically, if they used them vs the US, they'd end up nuking most of the Chinese-American population. The ROC armed forces are largely equipped with American equipment and modeled after the United States (their Marine Corps has almost the same dress blue uniform!). F-16, M-60 TTS tanks being the most modern equipment. All able-bodied males must serve in the military as well, although there are student deferments and abuses a la Slick Willie. I also recall reading an analysts report a few years back predicting that if the PRC were to attempt an invasion, they'd be stopped on the beaches and drop zones. But of course, analysts have been wrong before. I'd expect a CVBG or two to head to the Taiwan straits real soon, just like last time. March 18 is election day and unlike the previous one, the Nationalists don't have a clear majority. orrin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:39:50 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) We learnt about the situation as part of the what you can and cannot due in war and during peacetime. Unfortunately the while incident also highlights the effect combat fatigue and stress can have on what should have been a simple situation. Apparently the platoon has suffered numerous casualties over a period of weeks, from booby traps and unseen enemies (snipers etc). In the end the overall effect was the fatigue and stress on the platoon. The result is history, of course you can see that this fatigue etc is still no excuse in a military courtroom. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:50:12 -0600 From: "Walter" Subject: RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Remember you guys, that the only difference between a 'patiot' and a 'traitor' is whether or not you win. Might makes right. Always has and always will, despite what the enlightened philosophers of the world think. The IRA are criminals because they failed. The Montana Freemen are criminals because they failed. In Chechyna it is an internal police matter dealing with traitors until the Chechens win, declare independence, and other nations recognize them. If they win, it will have justified their actions. If they loose, they will be criminals punished by the Russian criminal system. War crimes are something that a winner imposes upon a looser to further exact revenge for the loosers actions. If the Nazi's had won, there would have been no Nazi war criminals. Not because what the Nazi's did didn't happen. Just because they won and the winner is right by the right of force. How vigoriously are war crimes persued against members of the winning side? Probably just enough to lend credibility to the process of exacting revenge upon the loosers. The US founding fathers would have been nothing more than a little footnote in history about some stupid right-wing (or left-wing or some stupid wing) criminals that caused a brief ruckus if they had lost the war of independence. In fact it was only a war because we won. Otherwise it would have been a bunch of criminal hoodlum's running around the country side until they got rightly put in their place by the glorious and brave (and RIGHT) British Army. Might makes right. That's the way the monkeys do it when fighting over territory, and that's the way people do it when fighting over all the stupid crap we fight over. I'm not saying I like it or agree with it. It's just the way I think the world is. BTW, I'm not presenting the above as if I am any sort of historical expert or anything. These represent nothing other than my own personal poorly-educated opinions. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:01:34 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 07:22 7/03/00 +0800, you wrote: >Also, why would the US step in???? > >It is still technically a province of mainland China. The US would be >stepping into a domestic problem. Would that not technically constitute >an invasion of Chinese territory??. > >The other thing is...why did the US not stop Indonesia entering Timor 20 >years ago...Why has it not stopped Russia blowing the kingdom come >out of the rebels??...if it went into Taiwan, you may find it opens a large >can of worms that would be very difficult to contain. I think the US has a greater vested interest in Taiwan, and that would cause it to step in. Timor and Cechenya are not important to any US interests; Taiwan's semiconductor/computer chip industry is, AFAIK. It's a bit like the Gulf and the oil. Not saying they -would- step in, the chances are just greater than in the other two you mentioned. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:48:18 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Calley is out of prison and runs a jewelry store with his in-laws in Columbus GA the last I heard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:50:07 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan Japan is not "unable" but prohibited by their constitution for foreign actions.. The ability is there, if somewhat limited __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:48:16 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War > As it was, many accused have disappeared without facing punishment. > One was even living in Australia with the OZ not doing anything about it > for awhile, not even revoking his passports or keeping him under watch. > When it was finally decided to go get him, he'd disappeared out of the > country. This actually annoys the crap out of me. The person you mention is an alleged Nazi war criminal. So far sufficient evidence has not been presented to any country that the person has ever lived in for him to be tried. All any country ever does is deport him for being an alleged war criminal. Here in Australia our laws actually state that you are not guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. Because of this they have the same rights as any other citizen. If he is a war criminal, cough up the evidence instead of just shunting them around and asking other countries why they aren't doing anything to put them up on trial. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:51:55 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Where was the westpac meu(soc)? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:57:46 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan > Also, why would the US step in???? > > It is still technically a province of mainland China. The US would be > stepping into a domestic problem. Would that not technically constitute > an invasion of Chinese territory??. > > The other thing is...why did the US not stop Indonesia entering Timor 20 > years ago...Why has it not stopped Russia blowing the kingdom come > out of the rebels??...if it went into Taiwan, you may find it opens a large > can of worms that would be very difficult to contain. > > Ballistix > Actually, it is mostly just the Mainland Chinese that see Taiwan as a province. If you ask the Taiwanese, they'd probably say that mainland China is a province of Taiwan :-) Anyhow, though the international community sees the People's Government THE government of China, and so gave them the seat on the Security Council, most of the major players do not regard Taiwan as belong to China. And as far as the examples of Russia, that is still considered an internal matter, and it's not an ethnic cleansing so doesn't require outside intervention for humanitarian reasons. I don't know what the issue is for Timor, except that it probably wasn't in our foreign policy's interest to intervene. Not to mention that we considered Indonesia a somewhat ally in the region. We don't consider China an ally (except in instances where it suits a purpose, ) but we do consider Taiwan an ally. So we would come to Taipei's aid, and though certain communities might protest (Russia and France come to mind,) it wouldn't really open up that big of a can of worms. As it isn't in Europe, we wouldn't really need European support for things like airbases and such. We can use our bases in Japan to sally-forth from. Not much the Japanese could do about it (but complain) and they probably won't, because they'd see such aggression from China as a bad sign. Who will the Big Dragon gobble up next? Korea and Japan would be the next two choices, before china starts moving down the Indonesian peninsula... Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:54:27 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > That is untrue. The laws of war depend on International majority. Case in > point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community does no > see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other laws > when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. The UK military is governed by it's rules of engagement. Those being very similar to the ones used here in Australia. They are also bound by the Geneva Convention among other things. All IRA members captured are treated as POW's by the military. >From that point on I think if you ask a member of the UK, that they are tried via civil courts in England and placed in prison. Treated the same (with more than likely greater security) as any other civilian prisoner. But to answer your question, the military of a country is bound by those conventions they are a party to. You are getting the conventions (rules of war) mixed up with the rules of engagement (ie when you can and can't shoot). The military is always bound by those conventions they are a party to. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #125 *************************************