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 quietly "threatens" Austrailia

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Chances are, Germany would've never invaded Belgium and France had they never been in that alliance.


After reading this, it's obvious you don't have ANY knowledge of what the Nazi's Third Reich was about!

Dude, Germany would've invaded Easter Island in given time.

They made a deal with the Soviets that they wouldn't bother them if they let them take Poland!

Did that happen?

It's no use telling you! Go read a history book!




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Yeah...I think all free people should care when a country annexes another country. The fact that China is a major power makes it more difficult for us to act, not easier.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
csulli456,

You present a very idealistic view of things. How assured are you that you are right? I think the problem is that people like yourself are so convinced that they are right and are so convinced the world is black and white that all they have to do is go kill people and boom, everything is all happy and good and red white and blue, without ever considering that perhaps they might have been the ones wrong all along. What if God came down one day and told us authoritarianism, tyranny, etc., were all "good" and everything you percieve to be "good" was actually evil? Ever consider that? Or do you just choose not to think about it?

Let me ask you a provocative question. As a parent, you must be authoritarian at times. With that in mind, are you going to say the authoritarianism is ALWAYS wrong? You imply that considering you think China is "evil."

All I can say is, there is only so much in the world a person can control. We have to choose what we think is more important to protect. And don't love anything "good" (like freedom) too much. Everything has equal amounts of upsides and downsides. You have to keep an open mind.

BTW, you're not unique when you say you considered joining the military. Just three months ago, I was on the verge of starting my entry into the U.S. Marine Corps. So don't love yourself too much.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Intelearthling,

Read my post. I was talking about World War I, not World War II.

Or if you are that lacking, the Third Reich didn't exist in World War I and Hitler was not in power at the time.

You definitely need to learn the basics, starting with reading.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Chances are, Germany would've never invaded Belgium and France had they never been in that alliance.


After reading this, it's obvious you don't have ANY knowledge of what the Nazi's Third Reich was about!

Dude, Germany would've invaded Easter Island in given time.

They made a deal with the Soviets that they wouldn't bother them if they let them take Poland!

Did that happen?

It's no use telling you! Go read a history book!


he was referring to the morass of alliance systems in WWI that were responsible for the entire conflict growing out of the asassination of Franz Ferdinand.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Wow, sweat I didn't even notice your statement about Belgium and France at first...ask the Dutch people what happened to them with their treaty. Yes, the Netherlands had a non-aggression pact with the Nazis which the Nazis broke and invaded them anyway.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah...I think all free people should care when a country annexes another country. The fact that China is a major power makes it more difficult for us to act, not easier.


Actually, it does make it easier. Look at it this way, the U.S. has so much trouble in the Middle East because the issues there have an infinite amount of dimensions and levels to it, while the issue with China is pretty straightforward: Don't let China take over, we must defeat them.

When it comes to U.S. and China, it's all about the basics: economics, democracy, power, nothing else. In that case, especially against a major power, the options are narrow. Fight or lose is all you can do. It's an easy choice to make.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Wow, sweat I didn't even notice your statement about Belgium and France at first...ask the Dutch people what happened to them with their treaty. Yes, the Netherlands had a non-aggression pact with the Nazis which the Nazis broke and invaded them anyway.


Dude... (bursts into tears) READ. We're talking about WORLD WAR I, not WORLD WAR II. The Nazis weren't even around in World War I!!!

In the name of all things sacred... read what we write!



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Wow, sweat I didn't even notice your statement about Belgium and France at first...ask the Dutch people what happened to them with their treaty. Yes, the Netherlands had a non-aggression pact with the Nazis which the Nazis broke and invaded them anyway.


Dude... (bursts into tears) READ. We're talking about WORLD WAR I, not WORLD WAR II. The Nazis weren't even around in World War I!!!

In the name of all things sacred... read what we write!


This is the neo-conservative mentality. They think of foreign policy in 1939 terms. They find it hard not to think of situations out of this time and apply it to current events.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Yeah, you're talking about World War I, but we're not living in World War I anymore that we are living in World War II. If you want to discuss the history of treaties and how they've impacted war in the past and apply those lessons to today, you can't simply choose one conflict that conveniently fits your preconceived notions.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
This is the neo-conservative mentality. They think of foreign policy in 1939 terms. They find it hard not to think of situations out of this time and apply it to current events.

thanks,
drfunk


This has nothing to do with neo-conservatism, this is about the basic idea of debating on a message board: Read the message, then respond, repeat process!

These two guys can't even do that! djohnson just read what intelearthling wrote and assumed that's what I wrote!



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah, you're talking about World War I, but we're not living in World War I anymore that we are living in World War II. If you want to discuss the history of treaties and how they've impacted war in the past and apply those lessons to today, you can't simply choose one conflict that conveniently fits your preconceived notions.


So... If a country is in an alliance in present times, the other nations of the alliance don't have to support them? Is that what you're implying?

BTW, I don't choose things that fit my pre-conceieved notions. I leave that up to people who don't read. LOL

[edit on 8-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
No I know you were talking about treaties, and went back to your original post to double check it. See my last post.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
No I know you were talking about treaties, and went back to your original post to double check it. See my last post.


I was talking about World War I. You were talking about World War II. Two different wars, two different time periods. Thus what you said was irrelevent.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I was talking about World War I. You were talking about World War II. Two different wars, two different time periods. Thus what you said was irrelevent.


If you would read my posts, especially post 1227579, you can see that I clearly understood you were talking about World War I. But I don't see your logic that WWI is any more relevant than WWII or any other war in history in analyzing this topic.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If you would read my posts, especially post 1227579, you can see that I clearly understood you were talking about World War I. But I don't see your logic that WWI is any more relevant than WWII or any other war in history in analyzing this topic.


Your posts did not show you knew I was talking about World War I.

I'm simply showing an incident where an alliance reared it's ugly head. And even today, it's still very plausible. If Taiwan was invaded by China but the U.S wasn't bound to protect Taiwan, the U.S. could choose not to do anything and it would just be a regional conflict ending in a Chinese victory.

But because Taiwan has an alliance with the U.S., if China does invade Taiwan, the U.S. has to fight China and thus potentially kick off World War III.

So no, when it comes to alliances, not much has changed.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Your posts did not show you knew I was talking about World War I.


Wow, and you accuse me of not reading, here's my referenced post:

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well first China took Tibet, now it looks like they're taking Nepal, next Taiwan...how many more countries does China have to take before some of you recognize it as a threat to all? Will it take Japan? Australia itself? The situation looks far more like Nazi Germany in the lead up to WWII instead of WWI. (emphasis mine)


Why should I take anything you say seriously when you refuse to read what I say yet are attacking me?

[edit on 3/8/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
You definitely need to learn the basics, starting with reading.


Monica,

I overlooked the previous post (the one before the one I answered), but it shouldn't be of any concern of mine since everything you say doesn't make a lot of sense!

BTW, someone give me a lobotomy so I can be a smart as Monica!


Give me an answer to this question if youv'e got the guts: Why didn't you go into the Marines? Huh?

[edit on 8/3/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Wow, and you accuse me of not reading, here's my referenced post:

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well first China took Tibet, now it looks like they're taking Nepal, next Taiwan...how many more countries does China have to take before some of you recognize it as a threat to all? Will it take Japan? Australia itself? The situation looks far more like Nazi Germany in the lead up to WWII instead of WWI. (emphasis mine)


Why should I take anything you say seriously when you refuse to read why I say yet are attacking me?


Because that post you just showed was in regards to another subject, not the one we are currently on. This started when intelearthling thought I was talking about World War II. You then made a response after his post, which is what I was talking about when i said you didn't read my post and is also the post I said didn't show you knew I was talking about World War I.

The whole thing was just a mix-up, and now we have set it straight. I just didn't know you were referring to a post outside of the current topic (alliances), not what we are currently on.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
"Independence" is the worst possible thing Taiwan can do. The Republic of China will be dead and many people in Taiwan will be very very angry about that! In addition, the works that a generation of people have worked hard to achieved may be destoyed. The Republic of China is by all means already "independent" and to decalre another "independence" just to get hit in the face is downright retarded!

The quest for "independence" is all a DDP plot to lie to the people and cheat for votes. They know they can never declare independence and never will.

It's all a political power game. The leadership of DDP knows that it can never gather the support to decalre formal independence and lie to the people to get votes and they always play down the possible concequences.

I have friends in the Berkeley students for sovereign Taiwan and even they believe that they are both Chinese and Taiwanese.

It appears that most Americans think that people in Taiwan hate China the nation which is completely BS. The number of peole who hate China as a nation are few. Most people in Taiwan call China "mainland" or the chinese communists instead of China because Taiwan is the Repbulic of China.

And those people who think we should go protect democracy is BS also. Taiwan has so much leverage in the negotiation and it can negotiate a constitution that garantees all rights. People like to say oh look at hong kong, they dont have direct election rights. But that was agreed upon by the Bristish and Chinese when the Hong Kong Basic Law was constructed. Taiwan has all the leverage and can have all the rights it wants.



[edit on 8-3-2005 by white_raven0]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join