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.

 

Chinese propaganda video shows them destroying the US military

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Teh first one was because they invaded KUWAIT. That was the legal one and if they wanted saddam should had took him out then because it was legal to then.

The second attempt though...was really really stupid. Since they went in they should had just got saddam and left. no rebuilding...no hearts and minds BS. What a waste of troops and lives. All because jr had to make a name for himself.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: wantsome

AND we will OWE them SQUAT after we CONFISCATE their assests.


People dont realize that If a country who is th e holder of a debt over another country attacks the borrowing country the debt is rendered null and void.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: yulka
I really don't know what to say, you could say hallywuuud, or EA?


That was a great movie.
As for what's in their mind who knows.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome
I would just like to add we helped China durring WW2. We have them supplies and weapons to fight Japan. After WW2 we rebuilt Japan. Japan has apologized to China for years. If it weren't for America China would still be dirt farmers. We gave them a chunk of our economy and prosperity. If they want to bully us into submission it's not going to work. China's overt aggression in the region is gonna have to be settled weather peacefully or by force. I believe the ball is in there court. If they happen to attack us or one of our allies I'm sure they'll feel the full force of our military might.


This not about who one us ww2 Every country had a part to play, including China.

You say China would feel the full force of your military might. You say it as if you are proud about that. What you fail to realise that is does not matter how huge or high tech your military is. It will not stop a dozen nukes heading your way.

You think a war like this would just involve USA and China? It will be ww3 with countries just launching their nukes. That will be it. No one would win.

So, the the small percentage of the human race ( governments) Decide if we live or die. And the sad part is, people like you have been conditioned since birth to be the way you are. And that's the reason governments get away with truely terrible things.

They are not mini gods. They are human like me and you. But they have such power and influence over us, that we are pretty much walking dead.

A government could declare war on another country, with reasons that don't justify a war. But would you ever see the military of that country put down their guns and say they want no part of it? Of course not, and that is the problem!



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Jay-morris

Teh first one was because they invaded KUWAIT. That was the legal one and if they wanted saddam should had took him out then because it was legal to then.

The second attempt though...was really really stupid. Since they went in they should had just got saddam and left. no rebuilding...no hearts and minds BS. What a waste of troops and lives. All because jr had to make a name for himself.


Yeah the second attempt was a terrible idea and driven by oil. Major oil companies were meeting with the government before the Iraq war to talk about the oil.

here



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sheridan91s


originally posted by: Sheridan91s

It's a shame that we defended ourselves against a nation that attacked us with zero provocation.


I realize this is off topic to the OP, so I'll keep this brief.

If by "zero provocation" you mean the U.S wasn't the first to fire a shot and spill Japanese blood, you're correct. No one I think in this thread is going to dispute that fact of history. Although the U.S ended the 1911 commerce treaty and put in place Economic sanctions against Japan in the late 1940's( 1940 Export and Control act ), oil and other raw materials ceased, trapping Japan's growing industrial economy into further trouble. Also I'm sure you know Roosevelt's admin knew an attack was imminent but kept it classified. So in short America instigated economic warfare which lead to a bloody and disgusting conflict in the pacific.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Which is WHY they MIGHT go for a false flag if a Hawk is elected.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
This is a video that serves several purposes and make no mistake on this:

1) It is propaganda, pure and simple. As most experts will say, and this is true when it first came out is this: In order to win a war, it requires the will of the people. If the people will not or does not support such, the military will not do well. if they do, the military will do well.

2) This is a message, and one that is designed to send to others, is that China is prepared to meet and use force. That it will be prepared to use land, naval and air forces to attack and or defend.

China does not make direct statements, if anything else it is subtle in stating what it wants or what all it could do. So I would believe this is sending a message out to other countries, like the United States, Japan, and perhaps Russia that it has the military might and would not be afraid to use such. With the tensions building in Korea, this could be something that may force both sides to back down.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Nicaragua



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think it's just some kid playing "Call of Duty".



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: yuppa

Which is WHY they MIGHT go for a false flag if a Hawk is elected.


Very very true lol.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Answer

Nicaragua


Nice try but it's quite a stretch to call that "going to war against a country."

We supported the indigenous personnel... not the same thing.
edit on 9/4/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
It's exactly like when many Americans were exuberant over going to war against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq because they were going to "kick ass" against the "people who live in caves".......how has that worked out so far?


The military objetcives were acheived in rather short order. The issues arose when we turned it inot nation building.


Funny causs those simple homemade weapons were still causeing American and allied casualties right up until we withdrew.....casualties that soured the public even more into a quick withdrawal makeing a already messed up area worse.

If you call makeing Iraq into a even more dangerous and unstable mess as "completeing your military" objectives then I hate to think what a "defeat" would be in your eyes!


Kryties and crazyewok, one thing i have wondered about is what could have happened. Maybe Iraq would be a thriving country right now if everyone was behind them at the time, but so many wanted to see that fail...i wonder why. Why were so many cheering for it to fail instead of succeed? If Iraq was successful then we may not see the problems we are seeing now. The failure of moral support seems to have made a much larger impact and none of it good. People had high hopes in the beginning, people were going there to work and set up infrastructure to make it a better place and now look, is this what you wanted?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

I suppose taking our embassy hostage left a bad taste in their mouths.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Uhm not quite.... The sanctions we put in place were a direct result of Japans actions in China and those sanctions are not responsible for Japanese aggression towards other nations in the South Pacific.

Trying to argue the US instigated economic warfare is the biggest bunch of BS I have seen.. Japan is responsible for its own actions and the US opted not to support Japans actions by continuing to provide them with the resources they needed for their military. The US protested Japan's actions and Japan ignored those protests. The Japanese thirst for conquest is the reason.

You guys really need to learn history and stop trying to blame the US for everything. I would wager that had the US continued to supply resources to Japan you and others like you would be bitching about that.


edit on 4-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Actually when Hussein took over Iraq was considered a 2nd world country. Hussein's actions after he took power quickly ended that advance and set them back.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I bet this will be show on US news.
suggesting a attack on US.

It's JUST to get More Money for the armed forces.
like 911 and many others. Propaganda...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: butcherguy

No idea why the US navy Royal navy and Australian navy could not of just blockaded the island and air.

Soon as the Islands ran out of food they would of had to surrender anyway.


But in the meantime Japan bolstered its defences?

I'm no military strategist but I would imagine a blockade would in itself take time and supplies that are best used at ending the war fast.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 5 9 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

always demanding proof because someone is wanting people to not search for it so you they win by default. really honest debating there. Reverse pschology only works when you dont recognize it. Sometimes its not able to prove assertions when th eperson you try to do it with always says its wrong.


So apparently requiring proof is "optional" according to your view of the world?

All the poster had to do was post a link, or something, that proved his point of view. What the hell is so difficult about that hmmmm? If the poster was right it should have been a simple matter of quickly linking the proof and then we could discuss that.

You must live in some sort of alternate Universe where people believe everything they are told "just because".

Wow, just......wow.




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join