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.

 

J-10,from China,I am proud of it

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Mercanaries have a number of advantages. Like Westpoint says, they can very well go beyond what an American soldier can. Breaking the Geneva Convention isn't a huge problem. If they do, America simply denies having any relationship. The situation is going on in Afghanistan right now with the whole private prison case.


- I am sure that is how the administration is operating. No doubt they do not see breaking the GC "a huge problem" - but nevertheless demand and expect other to adhere to it where their forces are concerned, no?

I am equally sure they are doing it as secretly or with as little debate as possible and that the majority of your country folk would be as disgusted as the rest of the world were this to become common knowledge.


You have to get tough with the extremists America is dealing with, because they won't cooperate otherwise.


- Yeah that is the kind of easy seductive BS every nazi that ever walked believes. The barbaric nazi always finds a way, some 'justification' to make the evil 'ok'?

The fact is torture and brutality is proven time after time to get very very limited 'returns' beyond causing a person great hurt - to the point of becoming utterly counterproductive.

Still if you're happy to work on the basis that 'we had to become nazis cos we were at war' (despite being able to 'do' a proper war like WW2 - against the actual nazis without such revolting degeneracy) feel free.

The fact is that it places your troops (and ours) under great risk and doesn't do very much anyway - beyond trail your countries' reputation further in the mud worldwide.

Still having trouble wondering why europe finds Bush & Co. in the wrong on this?




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

- I am sure that is how the administration is operating. No doubt they do not see breaking the GC "a huge problem" - but nevertheless demand and expect other to adhere to it where their forces are concerned, no?


Quite frankly, you're the one holding America to a double standard. Iraq tortured our POW's during the first Gulf War. The insurgents there are beheading our civillians.

Besides, I highly doubt there is ANY nation out there that doesn't do the same thing when it comes to dealing with agents of another nation. There is absolutely no way to get these guys to talk without going beyond the Geneva Convention.


The fact is torture and brutality is proven time after time to get very very limited 'returns' beyond causing a person great hurt - to the point of becoming utterly counterproductive.


When was this proven?


Still having trouble wondering why europe finds Bush & Co. in the wrong on this?


I know exactly why Europe feels Bush is wrong. They were in the pockets of Saddam. France, Germany and Russia were all receiving oil from Saddam.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Quite frankly, you're the one holding America to a double standard. Iraq tortured our POW's during the first Gulf War.


- No it's actually called a higher standard, a civillised standard even. It's true the Iraqis did torture some of the allied prisoners last time.....and what? That makes it ok? That suddenly negates international law on the subject?


The insurgents there are beheading our civillians.


- "Insurgent" that's an interesting word.....cos Iraqi patriots might say something your leadership would rather was not said, huh?

I'm not here to defend the handful of beheadings there have been but I think on the killed and maimed league the Iraqis have lost many many more than the US or UK.


Besides, I highly doubt there is ANY nation out there that doesn't do the same thing when it comes to dealing with agents of another nation.


- Yeah well that kind of thing just becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy doesn't it?

Funny how 'we' managed to avoid it in WW2.


There is absolutely no way to get these guys to talk without going beyond the Geneva Convention.


- Yeah right. Next you'll be telling us all they're "animals", "barely human" etc etc. heard it all before, same crap slightly different self-justifying nazi ideology.


When was this proven?


- Well you could start with the stories of systematic torture your own guys came back from Germany with after WW2 and how ineffective it was there.


I know exactly why Europe feels Bush is wrong. They were in the pockets of Saddam. France, Germany and Russia were all receiving oil from Saddam.


- You have got to be kidding me? You really believe that? Christ on a bike.

Here's a clue.

There's an international oil market. Russia exports oil worldwide. France and Germany get their oil from all over the world and have done for decades.

This "in the pocket of Saddam" 'idea' is pure propaganda garbage.....

.....hey why not amuse yourself and go check out how your St Reagan gave Saddam a couple of hundred million of your tax dollars in credit specifically to go buy French Mirage jets and Russian T62's.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

- "Insurgent" that's an interesting word.....cos Iraqi patriots might say something your leadership would rather was not said, huh?


Patriot? They're fighting because they got favor under Saddam more then out of concern for the average Iraqi. They're killng more Iraqis than Americans.


I'm not here to defend the handful of beheadings there have been but I think on the killed and maimed league the Iraqis have lost many many more than the US or UK.


We've killed civillians, but there's a clear difference between the insurgency and the Americans. America brought freedom, and doesn't intentionally go around killing people. The insurgents are fighting to keep a corrupt government in charge that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and tortured/mamed many more.


Funny how 'we' managed to avoid it in WW2


German POW's were not like the average terrorist we capture. It's doubtful a German POW could ever have given us useful intelligence. Terrorist organizations, though, function quite differently from an army.


- Yeah right. Next you'll be telling us all they're "animals", "barely human" etc etc. heard it all before, same crap slightly different self-justifying nazi ideology.


These nazi references are just useless rhetoric.


- Well you could start with the stories of systematic torture your own guys came back from Germany with after WW2 and how ineffective it was there.


The Japanese and Germans weren't trying to get information out of our troops, they were just torturing them for the fun of it.

I'm not suggesting we throw terrorists into work camps and starve them, I'm talking about basic interrogation tactics that go beyond international law. The Geneva Convention is vague, and can really be applied to any interrogation.


There's an international oil market. Russia exports oil worldwide. France and Germany get their oil from all over the world and have done for decades.


French, German and Russian oil companies all had large, CHEAP oil contracts with Iraq. Russia was basically getting 1 million barrels of oil a day for free. It's a lot cheaper for Russia to import oil from Iraq then it is to use their own.

Iraq continued to get weapons from China, Russia, France, and to a lesser extent Germany throughout the 90's. These nations were the opponents of the Iraq war. These nations were all getting oil from Iraq. These nations are all on the Security Council. Put two and two together.


This "in the pocket of Saddam" 'idea' is pure propaganda garbage.....


It's such garbage that the UN has been forced to launch their own investigation into it.


.....hey why not amuse yourself and go check out how your St Reagan gave Saddam a couple of hundred million of your tax dollars in credit specifically to go buy French Mirage jets and Russian T62's


American support of Saddam has always been spun and exagerated. You'll notice that the weapons they got were still Russian, French, and Chinese. The most direct help we gave to Saddam was intelligence, not something that could be used against us later on. America also stopped supporting Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, while France, Russia, Germany and China did not.

Iraq and Iran were going to war. Iran was in a position to crush Iraq. Iran would have then gained control over the second largest reserves of oil in the Middle East, as well as having their own large reserves. Besides this, Iran would have been in a prime position to launch attacks on Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia. They would have had the military strength to do so. They would have had the motive and desire to do it.

Don't buy this? Then explain why America ended up giving Iran weapons later on. It was to control the balance of power in the Middle East.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Patriot? They're fighting because they got favor under Saddam more then out of concern for the average Iraqi.


- I don't doubt that there are brutal politics at work here too but I believe the majority are fighting the foreign invader and trying to make life impossible for that invader and any who cooperate with them.....as you might well be doing if the situation were reversed.


They're killng more Iraqis than Americans.


- I don't doubt it. But the reasoning behind it is as I have described.

I don't know what you are told on your news but in the UK we do not see many regular Iraqis angry at the attackers most are angry at the occupation forces whom they see as responsible for bringing chaos to their country by bringing the war.


We've killed civillians, but there's a clear difference between the insurgency and the Americans.


- To you maybe. But I reckon to an Iraqi family that have just lost half their number such hair-splitting is meaningless.


America brought freedom,


- where is the freedom in a war zone?


and doesn't intentionally go around killing people.


- er, yes they do. There are numerous stories of casual shooting by western forces and umteen Iraqi casualties......just because everyone injured gets labelled 'insurgent' doesn't always make it so.

Then there are the 'stray' missiles and bombs - do you really think anyone cares whether they fried and blew half a street of innocents to pieces by accident?


The insurgents are fighting to keep a corrupt government in charge that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and tortured/mamed many more.


- well actually it would appear that by ME standards Saddam did not slaughter his own people in anything like the numbers we were led to originally believe. 5000 over nearly 30yrs is the latest estimate.


German POW's were not like the average terrorist we capture. It's doubtful a German POW could ever have given us useful intelligence. Terrorist organizations, though, function quite differently from an army.


- well quite.

Terrorist 'soldiers' operate in cells and when captured can tell you very little in actual fact so your claim is actually the reverse of reality. The WW2 axis soldiers would have been a greater source of information as they knew far more about their organisation, arms etc etc.


These nazi references are just useless rhetoric.


- no they are not they are germane to the whole issue of claiming 'they' are so different, less than us, less than human.


The Japanese and Germans weren't trying to get information out of our troops, they were just torturing them for the fun of it.


- Rubbish. I'm sorry to be so blunt but really that is utter rubbish. There were documented cases of psychos in their forces but they did attempt to extract information by torture. Go learn about it.


I'm not suggesting we throw terrorists into work camps and starve them, I'm talking about basic interrogation tactics that go beyond international law.


- You know the British thought exactly the same thing during the early days in the latest round of 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. It was just as illegal, just as inhuman and just, ultimately, as useless. The 'troubles' went on for 30yrs.


The Geneva Convention is vague, and can really be applied to any interrogation.


- Yeah right.


French, German and Russian oil companies all had large, CHEAP oil contracts with Iraq.


- Yeah yeah yeah. The fact is that the Iraqi oil was under internationally agreed UN control. What was so wrong about that? Iraq owed.

It's true there was a large black market that went by truck (mostly) throught Turkey but this was nothing like large enough to be sneaking oil out to France, Germany and Russia without international knowledge or approval.


Russia was basically getting 1 million barrels of oil a day for free. It's a lot cheaper for Russia to import oil from Iraq then it is to use their own.


- It might just be that the international community (through the UN) recognised that Iraq had to repay debt to Russia, France and Germany?


Iraq continued to get weapons from China, Russia, France, and to a lesser extent Germany throughout the 90's.


- Iraq got nothing of any consequence in contravention of international law....as we have just seen by their 'performance' in gulf war mk2.


These nations were the opponents of the Iraq war.


- oh get off of it. The world except for a handful of countries opposed the war.


These nations were all getting oil from Iraq. These nations are all on the Security Council. Put two and two together.


- These countries had legitimate business interests, so what? Funny how the USA is great casting aside any ethical qualms in persuit of its interests but a couple of countries not America who are owed large mustn't do anything similar.


It's such garbage that the UN has been forced to launch their own investigation into it.


- I have no doubt the UN is investigating a lot of what went on whether it matches your interpretation or not is another matter. I doubt it.


American support of Saddam has always been spun and exagerated. You'll notice that the weapons they got were still Russian, French, and Chinese.


- You think that was for no reason? It was deliberate. Reagan provided the funds for Saddam to buy.


The most direct help we gave to Saddam was intelligence, not something that could be used against us later on.


- that too, but that was not by any means the most.


America also stopped supporting Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, while France, Russia, Germany and China did not.


- Well that's an interesting spin to put on it. Alternatively France, China, Germany and Russia operated in Iraq post gulf war mk1 in accordance with UN resolutions and rules. This was perfectly legal and everyone knew it. So what?


Iraq and Iran were going to war. Iran was in a position to crush Iraq. Iran would have then gained control over the second largest reserves of oil in the Middle East, as well as having their own large reserves. Besides this, Iran would have been in a prime position to launch attacks on Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia. They would have had the military strength to do so. They would have had the motive and desire to do it.

Don't buy this? Then explain why America ended up giving Iran weapons later on. It was to control the balance of power in the Middle East.


- I have no doubt the US played each off against the other Iran-Contra and the known Iraqi deals prove this.

As per this kind of power playing has not been half as clever as originally thought, has created decades worth of trouble, has blown up in several faces and cost umteen billion dollars and several million lives overall.

All the same kind of crap the British empire pulled, brought to occupied peoples and ultimately suffered as it all went sour. You can lose yourself in the minutia justifying the details and ignoring the fuller consequences if you like but the big picture is that you are storing up trouble.

Maybe like Britian you even end up 'undefeated' in a military conflict - but as if that is the only guage, right?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This debate is now very far off thread.

DD I suggest if you want to persue it further we move it where it belongs to the war on terrorism section.

Apologies once again.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The Lavi, the Israeli fighter that sucked up billions of US dollars, where is that serving? In China as the J-10.


homepage.mac.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I am going to jump into this conversation. Gastric Cancer in the beginning pages came across to me as being Arrogant. I believe that Taiwan should be given Nuclear Technology by the United States. Also, I believe that the new Missile defense system recently tested in Alaska should be given to Taiwan. I also believe the United States Navy has a fleet and subs in the pacific already to be prepared for war with North Korea. I believe that The United States should build up defense for Israel, Taiwan, Japan and Iraq.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by DetectivePerez]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Taiwan has no need for nuclear technology, and that would make the situation 10 times more tense. China would never fire a nuke on Taiwan because it would anger the entire world, as well as destroy Taiwan. They are interested in it for economic purposes. It has advanced technologies and industries that would be a great help to them.

As for missile defense, it, too, would be no good for Taiwan. It'll just cause China to boost the numbers of their missiles at a higher rate, which has already happened since they were sold the Patriot.

The Taiwan situation is fine where it is at. The simple fact is China's got nothing that can compete with Taiwan right now. It won't be until about 2015 that they could even hope to achieve quick air dominance over Taiwan. Any time before that would leave too much time for American reaction.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Wow hold your horses the US should defend Israel Taiwan Iraq? Hell no we can sell them weapons and offer advice but im not ready to waste my tax money to protect them in case of war. I mean they are our allies but its not our responsibility to protect them. We could back them up that I have no problem with.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Whether you like it or not, America would certainly protect all three of those nations. Iraq is our new base of operations in the Middle East. Isreal keeps the balance of power in the Middle East, and is a powerful ally. Taiwan is a base of operations in the Pacific, and a way for us to keep China's power in check.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
大哥们,你们说的什么鸟语啊~小弟我根本看不懂啊~
我文盲啊!谢谢!



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The war between USA and China will ruin the earth.
I beilve it!!!!!!xiexie!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
qing wen ni men kan de dong ping yin ma???
J-10 shi wo men chinanese de jiao ao ~
PK vs taiwan jiu kao ta le!!!
xiexie!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I am from China, so forgive me at some potential mistakes at using English.

Unlike USA, China will only announce it's latest achievement on weapon researching when the next version is almost finished in secret. so I don't think J-10 or Su-27 is the real power of China. Although China's military is equiped by many old weapons, in recent year it keeps developing new and advanced weapons at a very fast speed, however these weapons are not equiped, why? one year later there will always be a new version coming out. we are not as rich as American, we need to concentrate on researching and will only equip them unless we need to go in to the war immediately. Probably ten years later you can see the real Chinese airforce and navy.

No Chinese wants to lose taiwan, which is a part of china in thousands of years, but it seems the American government is not negotiable on this issue. We don't want to fight against American, but we are forced to.

I think the war will happen ten years later, it's a pity, these two contries should be friends rather than enemies.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Unlike USA, China will only announce it's latest achievement on weapon researching when the next version is almost finished in secret.

Are you impaired the US military only tells you 1/2 of what they have, do you know about our black projects. To you it may seem like we reveal everything cuz they are so advanced but our secret stuff is even more advanced. The F-117 and B-2 both were not made public until a couple of years had passed. You think the Raptor and B-2 are advanced if only you could see our black projects.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Probably you are right, no body knows exactly what those military scientists are doing.

For Chinese, because taiwan is always a part of China in history, so we don't allow the new politicians to make it independent.If they do declare independence, then we are foced to use army.It is like the American Native War, you don't allow the southern states to be independent.

I don't understand why American people think they must defend taiwan against China, it seems you are losing a big friend for a small island, and why do you interfere with china's native war?

It is very clear that the chinese army is carefully preparing everything for the coming Taiwan War, to be honest, they spend 70% of their energy on studying how to beat American army's interference. Although I don't think we will use nuclear weapon, but we do have the strong willing to stop taiwan on its way to independence, even that will cost lots of lives of our soldiers. Some of you American people who are over-confident would think it is useless, but really rational American people should take care of it.

well, hopefully there will be no war between China and USA, otherwise both parts will suffer from it and it is a disaster for Asia.



[edit on 14-8-2004 by heavenbird]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gastric cancer
F-16 can be upgraded because of using better missile and radar.J-10 can do it as well.

J-10 have 2 sets of equipment.First is using Russian radar and missile.It will easily eliminate Taiwan's F16 A/B and have a good power to face the fighters from American carrier.

The second is using our radar and missile(not as good as Russian).But it still can kill Taiwan's F16 A/B without any questions.

The engine we will use Russian and ours.First we will use Russian.Because we need a large amount of J-10 in a short time and our engine product output ability can't fulfil our request.

With the differernt equipment,J-10's level can be equal to different F-16's.

F-16 are still largely used by American Air Force.The number of F22 are still too small to change a war.Changing JSF also needs time.


You cant just beat taiwan like that. Taiwan will make the invasion more bloody (check out the defences of taiwan) China will hesitate to start it. Besides, US Might will be coming for China if they attack Taiwan. US is the protector of Taiwan.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
No one really believes that China is likely to go to war with the U.S.A soon but because they probably have the two strongest armies in the world it is interesting to discuss scenarios of their engagements much like people did between the U.S.A/U.S.S.R though they were enemies and China/U.S.A really aren't. It's more of a friendly rivalry kind of thing than power struggle/ hate.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
[QUOTE]The accuracy of Chinese missile nowdays is about 5-10m with the GPS help. [/QUOTE]
Guess who controls GPS? Yep. One switch of a button and those things power down.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join