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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 48
1
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

1. China was once consisted of many powerful states. Each was conquered one by one by a tyrant name Ch'in, hence the name China. Please understand, we use to be more advanced than you (white folks). The key words here are "used to be." The six nations that existed at that time was way ahead of the rest of the world. Please see map.


Many different parts of the world have been more advanced then the rest at some point. What the hell is your point here?


I can see that North Korea got their azz kicked (which they deserved for starting the war, which costed us taiwan), but China performed reasonably good for a young army that have just risen from WWII.


What exactly did you achieve? You launched a surprise attack on an army spread out. We had started to dismantle most of our military. You suffered huge losses.

Look at how you performed in Vietnam later.


I believe China won because Mao succeeded in his goal which was to stop UN from passing the 38th. UN armies has already reached Chinese border before the PVA entered. Once we did, we pushed you all the way back to the 38th. Hence, we won because we achieved our goal. Did you achieve yours?


Our goal was to protect the South.

And China pushed us back by catching us completely off guard. Stabbing someone in the back isn't something to be proud of.


LISTEN, I know you don't like and don't care for what I say. You probably also don't like me even though we never met. But I only speak the truth. For example, USA is a great country becasue it treats its citizens better than how any other countries treat their citizens. But please understand, US does NOT treat other countries' people good at all. I mean, why should it? Hence, in view of other countries, US IS A TYRANT.


We help out more people in this world then we hurt. We give more aid than anyone else.

We're hated, but most of it is not deserved.


You like many Americans are ignorant of what goes on otherside of your country, and rightfully so. I mean why do you care if others suffer, as long as you are doing well. Now please don't say "we give the most... blah blah blah." Because what you are really doing is shooting a person first, and then trying to save his life. Does that make you good?


Bull. What we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is helping millions, and giving them a chance of a future. We are preventing things far worse then war from taking place.


When you discuss matters regarding world nature/politics, do some fact checking first, and then speak. Like me, I always give a source


If someone ever wants a source from me, they can have it.

I'm tired of this stereotype that Americans are more ignorant of foreign affairs than others. It's bull. I know more about the history of the world, and more about current events then you do. I guarentee it. Don't go around talking down to me.




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
In your last post you stated "whats that suppose to mean" when my point is plainly written. Are you hard of comprehension? Fine, I will say it again; the six nations that comprised of ancient China were more advanced than other nations that existed at that time.

Also, "you caught us off guard." NO WE DIDN'T, GOD DAMMIT CHECK YOUR FACTS. MAO warned UN many times of China's entry.

(Source: en.wikipedia.org...)

Caught you off guard!!!!!?????? Maybe you a-holes were too busy licking korean ho's, that why!!!! Caught off guard indeed, since your faces were up where the sun don't shine.

(Source: www.unclemelon.com...)

I am not talking down at you. Notice, how everytime I provide facts to counter your assertions, you fail to counter back with your facts? Come on dude, need I repeat, I ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH. And here there are:

1. US is more powerful than China

2. US can invade China, China cannot invade US (since we have no bluewater capability)

3. US is a tyrant.

4. US give and US take. Which more? Ask for a world poll. Don't just ask Americans b/c most American would also say American $hit smells better.

5. You do not understand the nature of relationship between our two countries.

6. You know nothing about China except that it is communist and all communists must die. I also learned this in 5th grade.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

In your last post you stated "whats that suppose to mean" when my point is plainly written. Are you hard of comprehension? Fine, I will say it again; the six nations that comprised of ancient China was more advanced than other nations that existing at that time.


That may be so, but what are you trying to show with it?


Also, "you caught us off guard." NO WE DIDN'T, GOD DAMMIT CHECK YOUR FACTS. MAO warned UN many times of China's entry.


He said we shouldn't cross a certain point. He never said there would be an attack. He never declared war.


Caught you off guard!!!!!?????? Maybe you a-holes were too busy licking korean ho's, that why!!!! Caught off guard indeed, since your faces were up where the sun don't shine.


Wow...what an intelligent statement.


6. You know nothing about China except that it is communist and all communists must die. I also learned this in 5th grade.


I know all I need to know about Chinese history. I know more about Chinese history then you'd know about some nation like India.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

In your last post you stated "whats that suppose to mean" when my point is plainly written. Are you hard of comprehension? Fine, I will say it again; the six nations that comprised of ancient China was more advanced than other nations that existing at that time.


That may be so, but what are you trying to show with it?


Also, "you caught us off guard." NO WE DIDN'T, GOD DAMMIT CHECK YOUR FACTS. MAO warned UN many times of China's entry.


He said we shouldn't cross a certain point. He never said there would be an attack. He never declared war.


Caught you off guard!!!!!?????? Maybe you a-holes were too busy licking korean ho's, that why!!!! Caught off guard indeed, since your faces were up where the sun don't shine.


Wow...what an intelligent statement.


6. You know nothing about China except that it is communist and all communists must die. I also learned this in 5th grade.


I know all I need to know about Chinese history. I know more about Chinese history then you'd know about some nation like India.


Holy cow. He wasn't suppose to declare war b/c that would precipitate a UN war on China itself. That is why our army was called a "volunteer" army. This is a valid and acceptable move by any country to declare war without really declaring war. US knows about this. If I am not wrong, US invented this.

You are right I know nothing about India, except that they are willing to bow down to the british. Now DON'T say "what about Hong Kong." HK was nothing but a small fishing village before the british. We have to actually thank them for turning it into a financial powerful house b/c if it wasn't for the british, hong kong would still be a little fishing village.

You sound like a fairly intellegent dude. But I think you are somewhat brainwashed by what you learn and hear in American media. There is a much bigger world out there and we both still have a lot to learn.

PS - the licking of korean ho thing is most likely true. I mean, what's war if there is no love.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by evilwun]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Don'y forget about all the help the Soviets gave China. Without the Soviets the Chinese would have had no air cover and no air force.

The Chinese just rely on mass, whats's 500 00 dead soldiers to them ? Not much as can be seen. The operational skill of the CHinese in korea relied on the basic concept of massed attack. Who cares about casualties.
I wonder if the Chinese entered the Korean war as a form of population control.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Here is part of a paper talking about the reasons China attacked the US in Korea.



Thirdly, like MacArthur with his cocky attitude and underestimation of Beijing's willingness and capacity to fight the Americans in Korea, Mao also underestimated the fighting capacity of the U.S. forces, and predicted a quick and thorough victory over the United States. In his telegram of October 2, Mao told Stalin that if the Chinese had air cover and sufficient firing power, it was possible in one campaign to destroy one U.S. army (including two infantry and one mec hanized divisions) with four Chinese armies.

However, reality soon forced him to change his mind. In his telegram of March 1, 1951, Mao predicted that the enemy would not withdraw from Korea unless a large part of their troops were eliminated, and that took time. "Therefore, it is possible for the, Korean War to become protracted, and we should be prepared for (it to last) at least two years.... Our troops must be prepared for a long war, and in several years, destroy several hundreds of thousands of American s. Let them know how difficult it will be. Only then will they withdraw (zhinan ertui) and the Korean problem will be solved." In his telegram to Peng Dehuai on May 26, 1951, Mao further recognized that it was impossible for the CPV to encircle and eliminate a U.S. division or even a regiment, not to mention an army. He proposed that each CPV army should aim at destroying only one company at a time. [50] By then, Mao must have realized that he had grossly underestimated the U.S. fighting capacity. But that underestimation had already precipitated the deci sion to enter the Korean War.


The full article.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Don'y forget about all the help the Soviets gave China. Without the Soviets the Chinese would have had no air cover and no air force.

The Chinese just rely on mass, whats's 500 00 dead soldiers to them ? Not much as can be seen. The operational skill of the CHinese in korea relied on the basic concept of massed attack. Who cares about casualties.
I wonder if the Chinese entered the Korean war as a form of population control.


MacArthur did what he thought would win the war, but the Cold War would be been for real, insteal of a political war.
The Chinese population back then was only like 200 million, or not even.
Yes, during that time, the government had a war against its own intellictual citizens.
Further, you got 2 ethnocentric countries going at it.. That means that one or two parties would never give up. When the US pulled out of there, it fueled the REDs even more.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Inhotep]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Lets not nuke anyone ok? Lets just play nice.
Are we not the most intellectual beings on earth? The US vs China war theory would really hurt everyone on this planet if it happened.
You know, it really hurts to say that weapon production is one of the major components of this global economy.

If you guys think the Cold War was fun, better think again.

Giving that this is US vs China forum, how about making this the US vs. China sailing. Just some better ideas.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
China v US: Your right its a no win scenario. Perhaps the answer lies between the orders of Pakistan, India and China, three nuclear countries possibly being told about universal regulations by others not from here?
Dallas



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
One World Government



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
O.K. before I get into the discussion this is my first time posting on ‘Above Top Secret’ and I’m not here to argue in a derogatory fashion. Last I checked, this is a service for people who wish to open their mind - if you can’t do that without insulting another, who is worse? The bigot or the misinformed? This is about educating one another and coming to our own conclusion.

During this ‘discussion’ I will, refer to many websites to explain key points. All of these are ‘sites, I use for College work and are very reliable. I am also studying, Law, Sociology, Psychology and History within Britain and I’m hoping to go on to do Law and Sociology as my degree. With China as my focal point of social theory.

But, I would also like to point out I’m not Anti-American (I actively admit I would of voted Bush over Kerry.) but I’m also not Anti-Communist (my views are somewhere within the middle.) Call it ‘Post-Communism’.

I also grew up in a very Military background, my Grandfathers on both sides serving during WW2 and my Uncle being in the Army at this present moment in time. I also happen to actively go to the nearest USAF and RAF base, to talk about things like this and once I get my degree I plan to join the RAF Gunners, for 9 years.

Anyway, enough about me - I just wished to provide some background information to help ‘back up’ my view. As that is how this game seems to be played.

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?

Firstly, before we talk about America Invading China we have to look at China’s geography:
China has borders with: Afghanistan 76 km, Bhutan 470 km, Burma 2,185 km, India 3,380 km, Kazakhstan 1,533 km, North Korea 1,416 km, Kyrgyzstan 858 km, Laos 423 km, Mongolia 4,677 km, Nepal 1,236 km, Pakistan 523 km, Russia (northeast) 3,605 km, Russia (northwest) 40 km, Tajikistan 414 km, Vietnam 1,281 km.

Now, out of these Nations America can invade on land through India and Afghanistan for sure. But, with the current political climate in the Middle East, I doubt India would really want to have America invade from there - especially as in my opinion this might result in a backlash, with other Middle Eastern Countries (especially Pakistan) might attack India. (Hypothetical - but this whole argument is.)

But the terrain would also factor into this:
‘mostly mountains, high plateaus, deserts in west; plains, deltas, and hills in east’. Now, if you look at the map on the CIA website, the east would make India hard to move a ground-force in from.

Now you move onto Air Supremacy. I do not doubt America having a much better Air Force than China, but it has to be able to use these aeroplanes or they’re of no use. Now, unless they can get clearance to use these nations air-space, America runs the risk of making more enemies. So, the only logical way for them to attack would be from ships and Australia.

Now, with the political climate in Australia and the United States this could cause a lot of friction between them. But getting rid of this point, the main way I can see America attacking is through its Air-Force, sent from Air-craft Carriers.

Now the problem with this is; firstly China does not have to release any information on its Navy and never does. Just last year, it was found out they’re near to completion of their first set of Second Generation Submarines. Now, although America can sometimes detect these submarines if an attack was co-ordinated well, they would be able to seriously limit the number of aircraft carriers. Which could in turn cripple part of the bombing campaign. (Which is the only logical way to attack.)

Although, missiles (Cruise) would still be sent over and in a mass number. But, the aircrafts tend to do a lot of the work and if they loose the air supremacy China would then in turn be able to send a mass amount of aeroplanes to attack American ships. Although they would suffer a lot of casualties, do you think China would care? As long as they won.

Another point, I’ve yet to see is would China adopt the “Kamikaze” style of piloting like Japan did in World War 2. You have to remember China is a “Collectivist Society” and this can be a devastating weapon in war.

Also, would they adopt this style and attempt to hit other aeroplanes out of the sky?

This is without factoring in things such as ‘Anti-air’ and ‘Military errors’.

All this information and statistics are gathered from:
CIA - China Fact Book
Collectivist Societies

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?

The problem with this question is “How well armed would these people be”?
The CIA website says: “Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 208,143,352 (2004 est.)”.

Where as America have: “73,597,731 soldiers.”

So, say everyone of these people have guns. China being given the AK-47 and America with their current military hardware - America has better firepower. But, even if the Chinese just do ‘Spray and Pray’ tactics, they would be able to do a lot of damage. A good example of this, would be like in Iraq - with the Chinese military digging in and doing hit and run tactics. Again, if you factor the “Collectivist Society” model into this - you have the problem of suicide bombers. But, you also have the problem of other Countries (terrorists) becoming involved just to attack America. (Look at Iraq.)

But also China, just like Russia has based its Military around how to defeat America. So, unlike any other Nation that America has had war with this could be a major problem for them. (Cold war technology and ideology still factors in, to this present day.)

All this information and statistics are gathered from:
CIA - China Fact Book
CIA - America Factbook

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?

American Airpower would be the most important aspect of the battle - it is how they would ‘win’ or ‘lose’ the war. Depending on the planning before hand. After all, America have never had to take on a Nation who are as developed as China (comparatively) since World War 2. (Except Maybe the Korean War - but that was, China, Russia and North Korea - as well as other factors.)

So, I think it would be the only way they could win. On a ground war, China has difficult terrain to cross and the defenders advantage. (Look back to question one.)

Which would make occupation almost impossible. Now if America did go for “Complete Annihilation” they would need the aeroplanes to deliver the mass amount of bombs needed. Although, this is doubtful. As China has far to much economic potential to pass up.


4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?

This comes down to two factors:
Firstly, China is a “Collectivist Society”. A lot of people agree with the way the state runs things (many don’t, I know this.) so, a large number of people would want to be ‘Independent of American rule’ especially with the political climate and the way America is seen as ‘Colonizing’ the world.

The second is how well they could be equipped. China has a history of its people willingly fighting with knives against guns - during the British/European occupation. But, they also could collect weapons from fallen American soldiers and their own soldiers. But, also would they use pipe and roadside bombs as well as traps - dwindling the American Army down like they do in Iraq. Plus, you have to factor in “Insurgents” from other countries.



5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?

Depending on how well they manage to attack from the air. If they are able to destabilise the country, then they might be able to get in. But, with the mass amount of people and land area to protect I doubt they would be able too.

6. Any other thoughts?

Now, this is where the ‘tough’ and mainly ‘hypothetical’ points come in.

Firstly, we have to look at the allies of each Nation.

China has Russia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba.

America has a large portion of Europe, including Britain and also Israel in the middle east but also Japan.

Now, without a doubt Britain would back America - we tend to, a lot. (I’m English by nationality.) So, they would gain the British Naval Fleet as well as their Air Force. Which happen to be very well trained and in turn, would get the ability to land and fly from Australia. (Remember, they do not have sovereignty.)

The other European Nations, would be problematic. With the current political climate, I believe France would not get involved and after Spain’s pullout of Iraq, neither would they. So, that takes out two of the larger more powerful Nations. But, also with Anti-War sentiment in Germany it is doubtful they would either.

As for Japan, I think it would hold back - if America lost they’d be an easy target for China in retaliation and also due to a lot of resentment by China after the occupation during World War 2.

On the other hand, Russia has had longstanding problems with America. (Ever since they were not told about the bombing of Japan with the atom bomb.) Iran, also hates America (we all know that) and well Cuba have never been good friends. (Ever remember the invasion by them to America in the 60’s? It’s O.K. nobody else does either.)

So, now you look at it like this. Firstly, let us take “North Korea”. They have had a long problem with America - ever since the Korean War. Now, realistically if China was to fall North Korea knows they would be next. So it is likely while America was busy with China, North Korea would attack the South - after all, the only reason this has yet to happen is because of America protecting South Korea.

Another major problem and oversight of everyone, is what would Russia hope to gain I they helped China? Well, it is called Alaska. With the melting of the polar ice caps, this has allowed Russia to be able to send more of its fleet towards Alaska. (It hasn’t but could.) Now, with America busy fighting China what is to stop Russia attacking Alaska? The oil alone would make it worthwhile and Russian soldiers are trained to fight in that sort of environment. So, they have a lot to gain.

Also, with America busy with China this at last gives Iran (and many other Middle Eastern Nations) the chance to get rid of Israel. Now because we have factored out Nuclear Weapons - the ‘Zionist Empire’ would be a very likely target by ‘Muslim Nations’ and without American protection it is likely this would happen.

Now, just to say America did attack with full force - which his what they would have to use, it is likely Russia would attack for Alaska. North Korea would love to get South, Iran would love to get vengeance for the 1980’s bombings by Israel. So, you actually have a lot of other countries involved for their own reasons because America is no longer able to “Police the World”.

Now, if this happened it is likely America would loose. Europe would back off, as they never do much anyway. (Come on, look at the U.N.) China would then attack/retake Taiwan. Iran and other middle eastern Nations, Syria and Egypt for example would probably attack Israel and maybe even Iraq. Russia would invade Alaska and America would then have no choice but to pull back.

China would then push fourth to take more land (Possible Japan, depending on if Japan helped America or not.) Australia because of its mass amount of land and agricultural potential as well as New Zealand.

All this information and statistics are gathered from:
Alaska State - Oil
Korean war
History: Russia and Alaska
Cuba - History
CIA - China Fact Book
Collectivist Societies

Economic Discussion and other key points: China is one of the richest countries in the world, but also they are able to feed themselves and take care of themselves with the mass labour power they have. America on the other hand, is isolating itself by its actions. It needs to sell products, to the smaller developing nations to earn money.

Now, if you say for example the war lasted for 5 years. It is likely each nation would develop two new fleets of air and one of sea, to use in the war. With an advantage in China’s favour due to labour power.

Also, with the way the American people sometimes are (look at the Iraq war) it is possible a war with China could instigate mass rights and other problems at home with the ‘Liberal’ and ‘Communist’ supporters. And in turn increase the terrorist attacks upon America - especially with their interests in other parts of the world. Possibly destabilizing the economy and in turn pushing the battle in China’s favour even more so.

As ‘Blackout’ pointed out, morale could also push in China’s favour as they’re defending their own land.

Russia would also be willing to sell to China, to help strengthen themselves and also keep America occupied well they got ready for a counter attack/were attacking.

Another possible problem is, what would Mexico and Canada do? Canada in theory would be with America, but do they have the Army to stop Russia? Mexico also has a long history of waging war with America and backing their enemies. (World War 1 and 2, if I remember correctly.) Leading to either A) the possibility of America being invaded by China/Russia from the South or Mexico themselves attacking. Although, I myself doubt this.

What of South America as well? A lot of these nations have had problems with Britain and America over the years and this could lead to another possibility. (And yes, this is starting to sound like WW3.) I also think, Britain would back out of the war within 2years and the European block would probably become one Nation under the E.U. (Kind of how the U.S. works, each country having separate governments with one central government. Like now, but stronger for protection.)

(Economics isn’t my main area, so feel free to criticise this, this is just my basic understanding of the situation and a lot of possibilities thrown in for fun.)

Odium: Bio-Organic Weapon.

Criticism and comments more than welcome.


Reference and Counter points:
In reference to ‘post id: 1137674’:
If you know stealth doesnt make you invisible just harder to find, also a rapier AND a type 42 destroyer (if i am not mistaken) tracked a B2 over scotland…’

I’m actually from England and he is speaking the truth on that point, I’ll try and find a document or website as soon as possible.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Odium]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
wow, wonder if this is the largest and longest lasting thread on ATS.?

Heres my take.

If China continues its military build up, all they are doing is drawing more atention to themselves from the rest of the world. They are building up there military for an assault on Taiwan, But if they attack them then there will be nothing to stop the US military from taking out a huge amount of China's military buildings and equiptment. The US Government doesn't like China. period. So the US will take what they can get, so if China feels bold enough to try and take back Taiwan, it better be prepared for an sea and sky assault.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Who knows what'll happen. I think China mainly wants to scare off the U.S. moreso, and control the Pacific in that area (which I hope doesn't happen).

However, we in the U.S. are very supportive of freedom and democracy. Simply bombing Chinese cities if China went after Taiwan would kind of defeat the purpose of taking back Taiwan (since we there to free the Taiwanese, not kill the Chinese).

And I very much doubt this will happen, because in doing so, China would lose its military capabilities and also it would get enough economic sanctions imposed on it that it would be devastated.

China talks tough ("We will take back Taiwan no matter what, yada yada yada") but no one wants a full confrontation with the United States and as I just said, in doing so, the Chinese would ruin their sea power.

Maybe in another 50 years, things might be different (wars may be fought different), but in 50 years I am sure the U.S. tech will be ahead of Chinese tech still as well, so it all depends. And regardless, no one wants a big battle, as I just said.

Even the Soviet Union didn't want a big war or any direct confrontation, or they'd have started one.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

broadsworth
However, we in the U.S. are very supportive of freedom and democracy. Simply bombing Chinese cities if China went after Taiwan would kind of defeat the purpose of taking back Taiwan (since we there to free the Taiwanese, not kill the Chinese).

If they attacked Taiwan, The US would not bomb cities into rubble. They would only take out military targets, launch sites, ships, radar installations, and possibly their power infastructure.
Like Iraq, we didn't go in carpet bombing baghdad.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Even the Soviet Union didn't want a big war or any direct confrontation, or they'd have started one.


The Soviet Union wanted peace after Stalin died. It was calculated that the entire US & Nato Airforce would be destroyed after 14 days if they attacked.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Even the Soviet Union didn't want a big war or any direct confrontation, or they'd have started one.


The Soviet Union wanted peace after Stalin died. It was calculated that the entire US & Nato Airforce would be destroyed after 14 days if they attacked.


With what? Sars! Be for real man! The United States does not play around!

The United States destroyed in 14 days?


By China? EVEN A BIGGER


Wake up and quit dreaming dude!



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Read my post,I said AIRFORCE!!!!

Military anaylasists say,if the US went ahead to bomb Russia,its entire airfore would be destroyed in 14 days,by both air defenses and interceptors. That is also why the USAF worked on the F-117. American ignorance is just what you need to win a war with China if it happened



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
And oh,if a war happened,it is common knowledge that American technology is better,but if war happened,one nuke will solve all problems. A singaporean source recently said China had 2000 nukes,I don't know how many can hit the US or if it is true,but it would definetly bring the US back to the 1960s.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
If Bush's objective is to eliminate terror and those who present "a threat to the national security of The United States" why not go after N. Korea with as much determination and mad drive as he did Iraq? (And now it seems that he's got Iran in the cross hairs!)

After all NK has been flaunting their flagrant disregard of the NPA. Their saber rattling and threats against Japan, South K. and turning the United States into "a lake of fire" are egregious.

In other words what they're saying is; "F**k you USA!!!...Unlike Iraq who had no WMD's and who posed no threat to you whatsoever, we willingly admit that we have developed nukes and will continue to do so even though it is totally illegal for us to do so...F**k the UN sanctions and the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement. Now. whatcha' gonna do about it a**holes!!! Yeah...go ahead and just try to pull that same sh*t on us that you pulled on Iraq and are now planning to pull on Iran (who you know have no nukes or viable armies with which to defend themselves) Yeah...JUST TRY IT!!! WE DARE YOU!!!"

Where is Mr. Bush NOW??? "Now, now fellas'...let's not get hasty! After all, we're all grown up's... we and six other nations can calmly talk this thing out...OK?...'cmon...let's be reasonable!"

Bottom line...Bush is a bully who only goes after nations which he feels he can overcome (even with some resistance as in Iraq) He wouldn't DARE go after N Korea because he as well as every American KNOWS that whatever nuclear arsenal they do possess would be deployed IMMEDIATELY!!! Even if it meant their own destruction! It seems that the honorable principals of our President to crush "EVIL" are reserved only for the ones who are unable to defend themselves or who pose no real nuclear or military threat to us!!!

He's a f**king bully!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Lapi7, this isn’t a thread to discuss your problems with Bush nor is it a thread about Iraq and if it had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, use the thread for its purpose. Simple as.

W4rl0rD, if you’re going to say such and such said this, back it up with some sort of evidence. I can say just about anything, but without at least a link, book or a newspaper article to agree with you the point is mute. (Although, I’m not disagreeing with how many weapons China would have. Especially since they don’t ever have to release such information on the level America does.)

‘China has accelerated the deployment of missiles against Taiwan to 120 a year, bringing the total arsenal to 706, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian said.’
in.news.yahoo.com...

That article I actually find rather interesting, it states China has 706missiles armed at Taiwan alone - so, surely those missiles could also be used to attack ships, etc? You have to remember that if America does go to attack China wouldn’t sit back and take it - they would counter attack directly onto America’s Navy. (Although, if you read my first post you’d see this in better detail.)

Intelearthling don’t turn this into a childish ’dick measuring’ contest. If he can’t back it up with any sort of fact, just ignore him.

‘China has launched the first submarine in a new class of nuclear subs designed to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, US defence officials said.’
news.ninemsn.com.au...

On another note, China already have submarines that out class America’s. So, all they would need to do is attack American aircraft carriers and then the American assault is over and ruined. (Although, I admit China would loose a large amount of submarines. But, as I said earlier; ‘They’re defending, they have everything to fight for’.)




top topics



 
1
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join