It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China pushing their power

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Let them have it! If the other countries over there don't like it let them fight for it. I could give a crap about south china sea...We should consider taking over Venezuela though! Lots of oil, nice coast line, great fishing area, lots of fresh water. Farm lands and a corrupt government.




posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


Just because the Soviets collapsed and all their vassal states were released from repression, does not mean that NATO should be disbanded.

The "Middle" East and the "Far" East might see things differently.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow1024


The NAZI were not any reason. In 1939 SU and Third Reich went on joint conquest, just in 1941 Hitler decided to stop sharing the loot and backstabbed his ally.

Hitler used the treaty with Stalin as a ruse to lull the Soviets while he positioned his armies. It worked as long as was necessary to prepare Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.

You do see that, don't you? Hilter always intended to invade, conquer the world. You do see that, too?


" To kill Nazis, to kill Hitler. Not The ALLIES."
Nice theory. But the fact that Red Army occupied my country (on allies side all war) does not fit it.

The Soviets stopped when they had Berlin and Hitler was finished. They stopped because the conflict was over, the enemy vanquished. They remained because the Allies remained. Huge army there in western Europe under US command (Eisenhower). Since They never left western Europe, nether did Stalin. Once NATO formed a permanent presence in Europe, so did the Soviets.

They aren't stupid.

Hitler taught them a lesson.

edit on 15-4-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
sorry, double post
edit on 15-4-2015 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The Soviets stopped when they had Berlin and Hitler was finished. They stopped because the conflict was over, the enemy vanquished. They remained because the Allies remained.


No, you are rewriting history. The Soviet Union's repression of Eastern Europe was because they did not want to allow their new found subjects to be anything other than a barrier to the liberal West. NATO was created - in part - to prevent the rest of Western Europe being subjugated. Stalin installed Communist regimes in all these states, including Eastern Europe. The Western allies returned all land back to the countries occupied by the Nazi's, the Soviets did not. They kept what they conquered by removing democracy and the freedom for nations to choose their future.

The failure of the Soviet experiment and the consequential flight away from Russia's sphere by the ex-Soviet vassal states shows exactly what would have happened had Stalin withdrawn after WW2 to his original borders. Stalin's communism was not something that people would have voluntarily signed up to. The millions who rejected Stalin tended to die in very large numbers, leaving a cowed and repressed population. Once the jack boot was lifted in the 1980/90's they turned Westward.
edit on 15/4/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Stalin didn't withdraw after WWII because of the Allied Expeditionary Force occupying all of western Europe (later called NATO).

It was a standoff. They didn't build a wall till later, too. Once NATO formed they stayed, too.

Once they left, NATO moved east. Seems they were right. NATO would have moved in sooner, but the Soviets prevented that.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: paraphi


The problem with China is that these Islands are not in their backyard, unless you have no grasp of geography.

These are China's claims in the South China Sea.


America is the one "grasping" the worlds geography. "South China Sea" not Chinas backyard., pffft…

I'll tell you who has no say there…


right...and our 50th state of Hawaii is ONLY 2,467 miles away from california, and our 49th state of Alaska is ONLY 500 miles from the USA mainland



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Don't cry, you funded it. Go buy some more # from Walmart.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shadow1024


The NAZI were not any reason. In 1939 SU and Third Reich went on joint conquest, just in 1941 Hitler decided to stop sharing the loot and backstabbed his ally.

Hitler used the treaty with Stalin as a ruse to lull the Soviets while he positioned his armies. It worked as long as was necessary to prepare Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.

You do see that, don't you? Hilter always intended to invade, conquer the world. You do see that, too?


" To kill Nazis, to kill Hitler. Not The ALLIES."
Nice theory. But the fact that Red Army occupied my country (on allies side all war) does not fit it.

The Soviets stopped when they had Berlin and Hitler was finished. They stopped because the conflict was over, the enemy vanquished. They remained because the Allies remained. Huge army there in western Europe under US command (Eisenhower). Since They never left western Europe, nether did Stalin. Once NATO formed a permanent presence in Europe, so did the Soviets.

They aren't stupid.

Hitler taught them a lesson.
No I mean attacking by Stalin in years 1939-1941 Poland and Finland, while also annexing nearby countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and part of Romania. I'm not debating Hitler intention to invade, just in the same way as I see identical intention at Stalin. It still don't fit your "NATO/USA fault theory".



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow1024
No I mean attacking by Stalin in years 1939-1941 Poland and Finland, while also annexing nearby countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and part of Romania.


There is a lot of Russian revisionism going on. They tend to cover-up, or hide behind a smokescreen of admission that the Soviet Union unilaterally invaded nations. It was not just the Nazis. It is also convenient to ignore that the Soviet Union repressed Eastern Europe and did not allow those occupied nations to return to the point they were before WW2.

Trying to blame NATO for Russian/Soviet action is the height of revisionism, considering NATO was created after the Soviets had invaded unilaterally, or invaded to remove Nazis, but in all cases occupied and stayed until their (oh, so sad) collapse after half a century of repression and brutality. Stalin was, after all, responsible for the deaths of more people than that bar-steward Hitler, many from those nations he "saved".
edit on 16/4/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow1024


No I mean attacking by Stalin in years 1939-1941 Poland and Finland, while also annexing nearby countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and part of Romania. I'm not debating Hitler intention to invade, just in the same way as I see identical intention at Stalin. It still don't fit your "NATO/USA fault theory".

I didn't bring the Soviets into it, others did.. When I mentioned NATO expansion others brought Soviet expansion into the discussion as a counter and diversion away from NATO. See where this has led?

Waaay off topic.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

"Our" state of Hawaii? You left out South Korea, Guam, Japan, and a hundred other US bases in the Pacific "Region".

Those are a lot further than Hawaii. And a lot more "pushy" then some uninhabited rock outcrops near China.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Those governments want us to stay there.
If they didn't we would leave ,it helps their economy and defensive spending can be less because of our presence there,OBVIOUSLY.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

"Obviously", those governments don't represent the interests of their people either.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Unless they want to be overrun I'm guessing they get it,even if they have to put up with a US presence.
Once the Norks fade and China implodes we will probably leave.
I would see the US becoming more isolationist as a result of the worlds not footing their own bills defensively. In another thread it has been discussed how Europe never repaid their war debt and we NEVER made JACK from our middle east conflicts other than what we already recieved from Saudi.
If they don't like the manner in which their safety is provided,let THEM do so without US strength,THEN once we have rebuilt ourselves things may become a bit more clear.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7


Once the Norks fade and China implodes we will probably leave.

China implodng is the desired result. Imagine a billion McDonalds customers.

As reference, when the Soviets left Eastern Europe who moved in?

Those US bases over there are the reason China is being pressured for its behavior outside its borders. There'd be less stink if the US military didn't have a presence and therefore Designs in the region.
edit on 16-4-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Designs?
We aren't occupying SQUAT taking over land or stealing their minerals.
Don't confuse what the banks do with what our defence policies are doing.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

With the greatest respect. There is a real difference between a host nation inviting a foreign military to base themselves in that country voluntarily as part of a treaty between friends (US), and a nation that invades, occupies, brutally represses opposition, and controls the government (Soviets).

Attempting to draw similarities is crass.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7


Don't confuse what the banks do with what our defense policies are doing.

The military isn't trying to conquer the Middle East for sand. Its about resources, exploited by corporations, driven by finance. The banks are at the top of the heap.

Case in point. Is the Chinese military after these Islands? What for?

Ahhhh…



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Now its "host nation" and "friends". Usually a puppet government takes the money to let foreign troops occupy their nation, the people have no say. If they did it wouldn't happen. You pretend that ain't so if it suits you.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join