The Pentagon has raised the alarm over China's military modernisation for several years, and the Defense Department is preparing to release its annual assessment of Beijing's military expenditure.

Last year, it said China had expanded its military build-up with more sophisticated missiles, satellite-disrupting lasers and underground facilities, all aimed at winning a possible conflict with Taiwan and exerting power.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of Chinese territory and has vowed to bring the self-governed democracy of 23 million people back to the fold, by force if necessary. The United States recognizes the mainland as China's sole legitimate government, but it is also obliged by law to help Taiwan defend itself.

The Pentagon said in a 2004 annual report Beijing spent between $50 billion and $70 billion on defense, third behind the United States and Russia, but Liu, said the allegation was wrong and that any increases were mostly to improve the living conditions of the army.

"China has neither the intentions nor the capability to drastically increase its military build-up," he said.

what do you think ehco, should China get to annex taiwan or should it stay free, with US military support if need be?

I think it should stay free with U.S. military support if that's what it takes.

so would you stop your anti recruitment efforts in the event of a war with china over Taiwan? what if we were still in iraq, how would you support one operation and not the other? Would you tell your anti recruitment recruits to volunteer for war agasint china but not duty in Iraq?

Originally posted by Travh20
so would you stop your anti recruitment efforts in the event of a war with china over Taiwan? what if we were still in iraq, how would you support one operation and not the other? Would you tell your anti recruitment recruits to volunteer for war agasint china but not duty in Iraq?

I don't know what "anti-recruitment efforts" are. If you are referring to giving young men and women the whole truth about the contract they are being asked to sign then yes, I will continue to make sure that any young person being "recruited" has full knowlwdge of what they are signing.

I may work for you, but for the young men and women putting their lifes on the line, ignorance is NOT bliss.

ignorance is not bliss but apparently playing stupid is. Come on echo, you dont know what "anti recruitment" efforts are? didn't we have an epic thread started by you on that very subject? With all your bold claims of "there are more of us then you realize" and things like that.

anyway, we will go with your claim of telling the whole truth. So answer the question, if china invades Taiwan and we are still in Iraq, will you stop telling recruits the whole truth? What if you convince someone to join to help defend Taiwan but they get sent to Iraq, sounds like quite a conundrum.

if china invades Taiwan and we are still in Iraq, will you stop telling recruits the whole truth? What if you convince someone to join to help defend Taiwan but they get sent to Iraq, sounds like quite a conundrum.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I would continue to make sure that when a young person signs a contract with the military that they are aware of all the small print. Hell, even banks are required to give a good faith estimate when they are trying to sell you a loan. If our government is not open and honest with recruits it is up to the public to help them get to the truth. If the truth offends you I am sorry.

Giving recruits the truth about what they are signing is something I have been involved with since the Reagon era. My passion for this comes out of my personal military experience and has nothing to do with the current war in Iraq. Although I must admit that this work needs to be done even more now that we are at war. It woudn't matter who or why we are fighting. Decieving young impressionable kids is wrong.

But as we have all seen, about half of America doesn't feel that the government or it's president should have to tell the truth to get what it/they want.