delete
Last edited:
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
It's kinda funny seeing all the anti-semite and neocons suddenly realizing that the Muskrat isn't about freedom of speech after the issues with the zionist terrorist in Germany, blocking the account and deleting the incriminating tweets so blatantly.
Many countries in stalemate managed to conquer territories despite no conclusive victory.
Exemples: Taiwan, US invasion of Iraq, South Korea, Kosovo, hundreds of European wars.
Exchanging territories is normal in wars but is not a guarantee of victory. Having territory is a necessary condition, but not sufficient to guarantee a decisive victory.
Yes, you will be defeated if you cannot defeat your enemy.
If you declare a war on drugs or a war on terrorism and fail to exterminate drug traffickers and terrorists, even within your own territory or abroad, you lose the war. Implies continuing to suffer losses.
Just like Mexico, Brazil and the USA are losing the war on drugs.
But there is the possibility of stalemate, when neither side wins and they reach an agreement.
The Yakuza in Japan and the mafia in Italy are examples of stalemate in the war on drugs.
If Putin says that Ukraine is now a Nazi state and promises to de-zanify Ukraine, if he doesn't de-zanify Ukraine he will lose.
But it will be a stalemate if Putin manages to at least seize most of Ukraine and concessions from Zelensky. Both sides will concede and make a deal, so neither will be the ultimate winner.
As I said above, if both Zelesnsky and Putin are conceding their initial demands in the negotiations, neither is a winner. Stalemate.
Both can declare victory or defeat, but neither has achieved a universally recognized victory. So this is the typical inconclusive war.
What you say has no evidence.
You are just underestimating your enemy. This is a gross error.
However, there is actually evidence in history that the Western mentality can overcome the Russian/Chinese mentality.
Who guarantees that a new revolution will not make Russia unstable again? Or who guarantees that a new alliance of Western countries will not partition China again?
Last edited:
Seems USA can't even copy China now.
At least Taiwan and Iraq are not stalemate.
In 1945 RoC controlled 99% of Chinese territory, in 1950 RoC controlled 1% of Chinese territory. The fact that it managed to hold onto Taiwan does not change the fact that it lost 99% of its territory. A 99% loss is not a stalemate.
US invasion of Iraq deposed Saddam but they could never get a handle on the country and now it is Shia and pro Iran. The goal of the US was not the mere deposition of Saddam, it was also to replace him with a more pliable leader. The result was the opposite where he was instead replaced by an entire pro Iranian Shia party.
No. If Taiwan still exists and controls its territory, either China vs Taiwan is a stalemate or it is a defeat for China.
So you think China is losing territory to Taiwan? Ukraine's claim is the same as China's claim in this matter.
In Iraq, the US invaded the territory with ease, but were unable to win, so they reached a stalemate and today the US continues to have military bases controlling territories in Iraq, sharing the territory with the Shiite government. It's a stalemate in every sense.
Last edited:
In a defacto sense, the situation between China and Taiwan PROVINCE is indeed a stalemate due to the agreed commitment and recognition from TAIWANESE daddy (U.S.) and the P.R.C. namely the ONE CHINA POLICY that spelled out unequivocally that TAIWAN IS A PART OF CHINA and that Beijing (CPC governed) is the SOLE legitimate government.
It's only the rise of China under the helm and leadership of the CPC that made the U.S. reneged on this commitment. The narrative nonsense that people like you seems to mistakenly repeat (CPC is trying to change the status quo) when it's Taiwan's DPP along with the U.S. prodding that have made the likelihood of a Taiwan war close to reality.