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 Ready To Use Military Force If US Violates Its Territorial Waters

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

Your reply insinuated that BOTH Russia and China are individually bigger arms exporters than the USA is, which simply isn't true...so, being we don't like ignorance and general muddying of the waters around here, and for the sake of clarity and accuracy..i felt it necessary to clarify the point.




No it was not. Russia+China .. that means add them together.




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As i said...misleading.

Honesty IS actually a virtue mate.

Besides...Russia AND China added together don't even come close to the total $ value of exports during 2014...

USA: $10, 194 Mn

Russia: $5,971 Mn

China: $1,978 Mn

Russia AND China together: $7,949 Mn....not even close Occam.



edit on 17-10-2015 by MysterX because: added text.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As i said...misleading.

Honesty IS actually a virtue mate.

Just because you say it's misleading does not make it so. I did not say both Russia and China, I said Russia+China. Don't lie about what I said. If you want to say it would be easier to understand written another way feel free to suggest it, but stop lying about what I stated.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, i think the majority of rational intelligent people reading this know exactly what you were saying.

Even though...look above, EVEN if, with a very large dollop of benefit of doubt thrown your way..your Russia PLUS China figures don't even come close to the US total of arms exports.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I wonder why people will think that China and Russia will band together to challenge the US.

Is not going to happen

One of the reasons the US has been able to survive as a nation economically is very simple, it manage to get all developing nations like China into the economical trap call the US, the same urgency that US needs china to by its bonds is the same urgency that china needs the US to buy their exports.

All talks and nothing but crap what is going on with China and Russia.

Is not going to be a war without collapsing the entire worlds economy.
edit on 17-10-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
No it has not. It was a whaling station and wasn't classed as anything else until UK filled it with its own people who wanted to be british. Again it is thousands of miles away. It would not be Canada sayin they owning Alaska. It would be like Canada owning Peru. Its not even close enough to be compared to that.
Russia are the real owners of Alaska but USA bought it. Was there no Alaskans already there or did they only move there when USA had paid for it.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, i think the majority of rational intelligent people reading this know exactly what you were saying.

Even though...look above, EVEN if, with a very large dollop of benefit of doubt thrown your way..your Russia PLUS China figures don't even come close to the US total of arms exports.


I said Russia+China .. did you ever learn what the + symbol means?


This is data from multiple years so you can't take one year and run with a skewed figure.

For clarity’s sake, here is the list of the world’s top 10 arms exporters, along with their respective shares of global exports between 2010 and 2014, from SIPRI:

United States: 31%
Russia: 27%
China: 5%

www.cheatsheet.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: chewi

So it was empty, and an existing island, and the UK put people on it.

How is that the same as creating an island from nothing and putting a military base there to steal land from other people. What has Argentina lost to the Falklands, what land has been stolen from them?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: Vector99
No it has not. It was a whaling station and wasn't classed as anything else until UK filled it with its own people who wanted to be british. Again it is thousands of miles away. It would not be Canada sayin they owning Alaska. It would be like Canada owning Peru. Its not even close enough to be compared to that.
Russia are the real owners of Alaska but USA bought it. Was there no Alaskans already there or did they only move there when USA had paid for it.


your source comes in 3..2..1?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Not too worried. They can call US "bluff" all they want, but if it came down to it, the US would lay waste to the entire operation, likely in a single day. It would be like Pearl Harbor basically. A few well placed bombs and the artificial islands would sink back to where they were birthed from.


What a retarded comment ... hope for a conflict.

As always, the US is wrong here ... if the Chinese "can" build these Islands, it means that the waters in question are shallow. They are shallow, because they are a part of the Chinese landmass. It's not a deep ocean ... which in reality gives China this right. The US is disputing this, as it wants access to the oil in the region ... and China is barring the US for the same reason. And, for the fact, that US/UK have ruined the region with oil spills. Yeah, I know that you're going to say that the US/UK will be cleaner than China. This is China's territory and basically the US should go and have a coolaid or something ... like "grow up", or "grow a brain".



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
HISTORY



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It is not the same BUT STILL THEFT. It belonged to someone before they came. Same as Alaska. At least USA paid for that.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: Vector99
HISTORY


according to who?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
You are asking for a source which implies you really don't know much about it. I was at the side of some of those men asked to fight other men to further the riches of the richest.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn

As always, the US is wrong here ... if the Chinese "can" build these Islands, it means that the waters in question are shallow. They are shallow, because they are a part of the Chinese landmass.

So several miles from the Philippines, and 500 miles from China is part of the Chinese landmass? Explain?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Not too worried. They can call US "bluff" all they want, but if it came down to it, the US would lay waste to the entire operation, likely in a single day. It would be like Pearl Harbor basically. A few well placed bombs and the artificial islands would sink back to where they were birthed from.


What a retarded comment ... hope for a conflict.

As always, the US is wrong here ... if the Chinese "can" build these Islands, it means that the waters in question are shallow. They are shallow, because they are a part of the Chinese landmass. It's not a deep ocean ... which in reality gives China this right. The US is disputing this, as it wants access to the oil in the region ... and China is barring the US for the same reason. And, for the fact, that US/UK have ruined the region with oil spills. Yeah, I know that you're going to say that the US/UK will be cleaner than China. This is China's territory and basically the US should go and have a coolaid or something ... like "grow up", or "grow a brain".

so can the US start building Islands off of Siberia (close to Alaska), in the coastal South American regions (close to mainland), and even in the South China Sea seeing as the Philippines are a protectorate and start claiming territory?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It is not the same BUT STILL THEFT. It belonged to someone before they came. Same as Alaska. At least USA paid for that.


False. The very first settlers were British back in the 1600s. It was stolen by the Spanish, and later reclaimed by the UK. The only theft was the initial stealing from the Brits.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
Do some research on subjects you are commenting on. I know and experienced the Falkands. Did you just find some source to spout or did you not even do that?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: Vector99
You are asking for a source which implies you really don't know much about it. I was at the side of some of those men asked to fight other men to further the riches of the richest.


So you are the source.

Was there anyone that disagreed with your standpoint?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: Vector99
Do some research on subjects you are commenting on. I know and experienced the Falkands. Did you just find some source to spout or did you not even do that?


what research should I do? point me there please.







 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join