The Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia — can it handle both?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: face23785

No its not disputed. You either are not understanding what you shared or are trying to spread disinformation.
Makes no difference to me. I am use to it.


One paper deals with violent death the other the total death rate from the occupation. As I said apples and pears. Both papers are perfectly compatible with each other and the death toll remains as stated.

No you're not understanding what I shared. It says, in plain English, the part of the study that counted violent deaths was wrong. They used flawed methodology and came up with an unrealistically high number compared to other studies that have counted that. One whole section of their overall count is wrong, so how can you depend on the rest of it being correct? Even if they didn't # up the rest of the study, the overall number is wrong because they #ed up the violent deaths part. The number you're pushing is wrong, no matter how you spin it. Sorry, your propaganda got debunked. Go cry somewhere else that you can't post faulty data that's easily refuted.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: face23785

No its not disputed. You either are not understanding what you shared or are trying to spread disinformation.
Makes no difference to me. I am use to it.


One paper deals with violent death the other the total death rate from the occupation. As I said apples and pears. Both papers are perfectly compatible with each other and the death toll remains as stated.

No you're not understanding what I shared. It says, in plain English, the part of the study that counted violent deaths was wrong. They used flawed methodology and came up with an unrealistically high number compared to other studies that have counted that. One whole section of their overall count is wrong, so how can you depend on the rest of it being correct? Even if they didn't # up the rest of the study, the overall number is wrong because they #ed up the violent deaths part. The number you're pushing is wrong, no matter how you spin it. Sorry, your propaganda got debunked. Go cry somewhere else that you can't post faulty data that's easily refuted.

Thank you. i was thinking of that british story.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

I thought we were West and the other 2 the East?

This is news or something why?

This is not new. For years every major world power, country and major military force, have come up with strategies against various other countries out there. And for years the USA has not been any different. I would say if you go into those offices and were to look, one would see such for both Russia and China, but also most of the rest of the world, including North America. This would be estimates and where to strike, what to hold, how to move, and all of the logistics of both a short and long term campaigns. Including estimates on losses on both sides, the numbers that would be needed, the supplies.

With all of the reports that are coming out about the new weapons that are being developed, and how much damage it could do to various points, strategies, these are always being updated at all times. This would also mean what areas would be the proverbial ground zero, the types and kinds of weapons, the possibility of NBC attacks, along with conventional forces.

So this is nothing new and rather is just a form of saber rattling and sending messages through the usual channels to let the other countries, in this case China and Russia, that the US has seen the new weapons and strategies that it has, and is working on countering such. They all do it, why should the USA be any different?

My guess is it's a mutual agreement to fake another cold war type of situation. The US certainly has no stomach for a Vietnam type of war. We didn't even have the stomach for it when we had the last one. We definitely don't now.