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: 17
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
It's a known fact now that the reason France, Germany and Russia did not want the United States and the United Kingdom to invade and overthrow the then Iraqi government was that they were dealing with Saddams' regime despite UN sactions and it would be found out only by invasion, because they would have never admitted it. All they had to do was to give Saddam technical
expertise in TRADE for oil.


- That's certainly the know US propaganda.




posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Sminkeypinkey, you really didn't put up any argument to what I said.


- Sorry I thought I had.


What would be different if we fought the Republican Guard again? We didn't just have the advantage of being able to see better. The Iraqis were just poorly led. The Iraqis had pretty thick defenses, and if we had just fought them head on it would have caused a lot more damage to American forces. We basically flanked their best forces, and attacked from behind. The Iraqis suffered the same fate as many armies that used stationary defenses. Like France, or the English in WW2, they paid for this mistake.


- I'm simply saying that the Iraqis genuinely attempted to fight (to begin with) in GW1 but in GW2 they did not really. Undoubtedly there were pockets that did fight but most walked and melted away and this running sore of an urban warfare is what is left.


If China wants to get into an arms race with America, then they'll lose.


- I'm saying that beyond modest modernisation there is absolutely no sign of this.

Quite the opposite in fact as China is reducing her manpower numbers.

Yet China is currently being held up as justification for yet another deep gouge of the US taxpayer on ever more complex weaponry as if she were a serious threat and as if there were serious 'competition out there. The plainly is not nor is there likely to be.

Thanks to your deficit spending and your government's reliance on the system of world credit to fund that spending that is neither good, worthwhile nor healthy for any of us.

If the world's richest economy is sucking up most of the world's available credit that is hardly going to help the middle and bottom nations (ie where most of the trouble comes from) is it?

....and so much of it to be spent on arms that are not 'needed' by any sane measure. Great, way to go guys.


America's economy is twice the size of China's. At the same time, it would take a far larger economy for China to really match us in military spending.


- I don't see anyone disputing this.....except for the 'military fans' who seem to have a problem admitting the true state of affairs because it would mean a curtailing of their pet programs.


That huge population of theirs will require more spending on basic programs.


- Precisely. China has far greater priorities than entering into an idiotic military competition with the US. For what anyway? China is not in need of territory, she is vast. She is simply wanting her own Chinese land back that was taken from her. This perfectly normal and natural given the circumstances.


China truly does not have the money to increase their budget much more right now because of this. The true strength of China's economy is far weaker then it looks on paper.


- Quite. China has much potential but a long long way to go to realise it.


The Chinese completely caught us off guard. That's an American mistake, but the Chinese did not match us equally. China outnumbered us greatly, they had superior Russian technology behind them. At the same time America was only able to commit just 40% of its true military strength to Korea. We had large numbers of troops keeping order throughout Europe and Japan.


- The cold war was what Korea was all about. It was Stalin chancing his luck and BTW it was the UN forces that opposed him, not just the USA's.

Stalin is gone and is never coming back.


By the end of the war, we were pushing China and North Korean troops back.


- Um, no, at the end it was something of a bogged down stalemate wasn't it?


The only thing that saved China was a lack of desire back in America to keep fighting.


- It was not just about the USA. It was the UN forces that opposed this invasion.

In any case I think no-one had much stomach to continue the fight. Stalin got it going chancing his luck and when that failed it disolved IMO into a pointless slugging match neither side was going to win nor lose.


We achieved the real goal of that war-STOPPING THE COMMUNIST NORTH FROM TAKING THE SOUTH.


- Yes the UN forces did that.


I believe America could very well conquer China.


- I doubt it. I think that such an action would destroy the USA in any meaningful sense of the term as well as China and much of the world once the resultant nuclear war really got going.

Besides, who in the USA would be so deranged as to attempt this? For what? Sheer conquest?


It does not take a large number of troops to conquer a huge country. In fact, the greatest conquests of all time were achieved while being vastly outnumbered. You can look at modern forces like WW2 Germany, back down to Napoleon. The Mongols built the largest empire in history, and were a very small force. Alexander the Great conquered vast territory with under 50,000 troops. He faced armies multiple times the size of his on multiple occasions.


- It is one thing to defeat a countries' army it is quite another to occupy, hold and rule it. That tends to take people on the ground.


Numbers have always been overrated. A great tactician with very well trained troops (like America has), can overcome any army. America has overcome more patriotic countries then China in the past. Japan and Germany in WW2 were full of extremists. China in its last war didn't put out much of any showing. Half the Chinese fought for the Japanese.


- It maybe that numbers aren't what they were in a fight army versus army but then the fight itself has a habit of changing. If the USA can beat anyone in a conventional stand up fight why would anyone bother having conventional stand up fights anymore?

As for what went on in WW2, so what? That is no guide to possible future behaviour.

German people are now are probably the most peaceable people in europe and the Chinese pretty well up on as much 'patriotic fervour' as anyone ever was.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Interearthling, upon what do you base your assumption that Britain will turn its back on the USA? I hope its not just the harmless 'Yank Baiting' that goes on here?


The Alliance between the US and UK is the strongest the world has ever seen and is the source of constant frustration (and jealousy?) among some of our European neighbours. As someone else has said, Israel is the ally you would want to keep the least. The hypocrisy of Israel makes me sick, but thats another debate.

As I had said, I hope it never comes to this. There a factions within your government, as well as ours, who would love to see the collapse of our long standing alliance. 50 years ago, these same kind of people would have been called communists; today they are called liberals. As for Israel, let her do as she wishes.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Wow I think you just set an ATS record for most posts in a row

I'm just pissed at this Chinese commie who's hell-bent on triggering WWIII.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

- I'm simply saying that the Iraqis genuinely attempted to fight (to begin with) in GW1 but in GW2 they did not really. Undoubtedly there were pockets that did fight but most walked and melted away and this running sore of an urban warfare is what is left.


They surrendered because they had already tried to compete and failed terribly. This is useless to bring up.


Quite the opposite in fact as China is reducing her manpower numbers


China is scaling down so they can equip and train their forces to a competitive level.


- Precisely. China has far greater priorities than entering into an idiotic military competition with the US. For what anyway? China is not in need of territory, she is vast. She is simply wanting her own Chinese land back that was taken from her. This perfectly normal and natural given the circumstances.


Someone really needs to tell this to China's generals. Having some make claims that they will topple America really isn't a good way to show desire for peace.


- The cold war was what Korea was all about. It was Stalin chancing his luck and BTW it was the UN forces that opposed him, not just the USA's.


The UN Forces? Are you actually serious when you say that? There were just a few thousand non-Americans fighting. It was an American war against Korea.


- Um, no, at the end it was something of a bogged down stalemate wasn't it?


We fought our way back to Seoul from the coast.


I doubt it. I think that such an action would destroy the USA in any meaningful sense of the term as well as China and much of the world once the resultant nuclear war really got going.


There won't be a resulting nuclear war. It would completely pointless for any nation to use them on another nuclear nation. China doesn't even have that many nukes, and nowhere near as competent a delivery system. It wouldn't be so hard to take out China's 20 or so ICBM's.


Besides, who in the USA would be so deranged as to attempt this? For what? Sheer conquest?


Anything can happen. Give it twenty years and see where America is.


- It is one thing to defeat a countries' army it is quite another to occupy, hold and rule it. That tends to take people on the ground.


America has the best trained ground troops in the world. I've already pointed out how a smaller force holds a large country. It's been done countless times in the past.


- It maybe that numbers aren't what they were in a fight army versus army but then the fight itself has a habit of changing. If the USA can beat anyone in a conventional stand up fight why would anyone bother having conventional stand up fights anymore?


Guerilla wars are really overrated. In an all out war between two countries, guerilla combat is completely ineffective to truly stop your opponent. At best it serves as a means to soften them up for normal combat.


German people are now are probably the most peaceable people in europe and the Chinese pretty well up on as much 'patriotic fervour' as anyone ever was.


It's funny that the number of protesters in China increases each year. More people are becoming angry with the government as they have their land stripped from them by corrupt officials and receive insignificant compensation.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They surrendered because they had already tried to compete and failed terribly. This is useless to bring up.


- No, I think you'll find there was no formal surrender.

Agreements with the UN in GW mk1 but nothing in GW mk2. As best as I can make out the war has only been declared over in that absurd piece of naval pantomime by 'Dub-ya'.


China is scaling down so they can equip and train their forces to a competitive level.


- No, China is reducing her military numbers and will not by any stretch of the imagination become 'competitive' by this action.


Someone really needs to tell this to China's generals. Having some make claims that they will topple America really isn't a good way to show desire for peace.


- I suggest it is an affliction common 'that brand' of military types in each country, they're not that different to 'our' war-perv nutters.


The UN Forces? Are you actually serious when you say that? There were just a few thousand non-Americans fighting. It was an American war against Korea.


- I suggest you back and look at this. The Korean war was fought undder the UN's sanction and auspices. 16 countries were involved, not just the USA.


We fought our way back to Seoul from the coast.


- Yes, compared to the losses and the worst position reached, ground had indeed been recovered. Nevertheless when it ended it ended in a bogged down stalemate.


There won't be a resulting nuclear war. It would completely pointless for any nation to use them on another nuclear nation. China doesn't even have that many nukes, and nowhere near as competent a delivery system. It wouldn't be so hard to take out China's 20 or so ICBM's.


- Yup, IMO there it is; that's the kind of wilful blinkered certainty that could really lead to an all out nuclear war one day.


Anything can happen. Give it twenty years and see where America is.


- Come off it, no one has the budget to 'catch up' in 20yrs much less deploy anything comparable.

With that kind of "anything can happen" 'reasoning' why not just give ourselves over to the paranoia completely and kill ourselves and get it over, right?!


America has the best trained ground troops in the world. I've already pointed out how a smaller force holds a large country. It's been done countless times in the past.


- If you say so. I'd point out that it has also been tried and failed numerous times too.


Guerilla wars are really overrated. In an all out war between two countries, guerilla combat is completely ineffective to truly stop your opponent. At best it serves as a means to soften them up for normal combat.


- Really!?

I completely disagree with your analysis.....and I am surprised to hear an American talk like this considering.


It's funny that the number of protesters in China increases each year. More people are becoming angry with the government as they have their land stripped from them by corrupt officials and receive insignificant compensation.


- I don't deny people, rightly, want certain changes in China.

But I don't accept that means necessarily what 'we' or some of us in the west think it might mean. If it's to be stable and lasting China will have to find China's way, attempting to impose 'our' way would IMO be counter-productive and ultimately disasterous.....as well as being unwanted by most as it is.

As for people angry at their government? That's much harder to guage.

But by that standard there isn't a government in the west not criticised but I don't foresee any kind of serious revolution.

China will change gradually, pressure and threats are not IMO the method to accellerate the changes. Engagement, cooperation and actually living the noble ideals we expect of others ourselves, are.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



The UN Forces? Are you actually serious when you say that? There were just a few thousand non-Americans fighting. It was an American war against Korea.


no thats wrong british forces where in korea where actually i remember right your lot bombed our lot with napalm.









America has the best trained ground troops in the world. I've already pointed out how a smaller force holds a large country. It's been done countless times in the past.


best trained troops huh? doubt it, every one knows britain is the master at training, hell our marines are the best. our army is the best trained,our airforce is one of the best trained and our navy is the best trained. look around you will see that our ones are trained longer.
A. british standrad infantry man is trained for 12 weeks american troops 9 weeks not includeing reception/introduction. which would make it 10.
B. british royal marine comando's are trained to be as physically fit as navy seals FACT. they spend a 3 day PRC then go on to the course wich is 32 weeks long.
US marines are not although i respect them cause they do some hard training none the less.they still kick ass.they do a 13 week "boot camp"



Guerilla wars are really overrated. In an all out war between two countries, guerilla combat is completely ineffective to truly stop your opponent. At best it serves as a means to soften them up for normal combat.

actually it isnt just to "soften them up" it deals with INTEL,special forces attacking bases and stops the enemy from sending troops to the front if they need to guard thier bases at home. and it can stop the enemy from acessing key assests in battle.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

- No, I think you'll find there was no formal surrender.

Agreements with the UN in GW mk1 but nothing in GW mk2. As best as I can make out the war has only been declared over in that absurd piece of naval pantomime by 'Dub-ya'.


What does this have to do with anything? We faced Iraq's best, and we demolished them in the first Gulf War. Many Iraqis didn't even try to fight in the second war because it was pointless. This is just the reality of the situation. The Iraqi forces could not under any circumstances fight us.


- No, China is reducing her military numbers and will not by any stretch of the imagination become 'competitive' by this action.


You're just ignoring what I said. They are cutting down numbers to modernize. It's a lot harder to make a modern army of 3 million instead of 2.


- I suggest it is an affliction common 'that brand' of military types in each country, they're not that different to 'our' war-perv nutters.


French officials when talking about opening up the arms embargo on China state both governments feel war is unavoidable. It is not common for TOP generals in the armies of two countries to openly remark that they will crush another.


- I suggest you back and look at this. The Korean war was fought undder the UN's sanction and auspices. 16 countries were involved, not just the USA.


I suggest you look at the real troop numbers. There were 40,000 UN troops there, and over 300,000 Americans. The UN troops came after the Americans, and served in the back of the line. Americans were doing the real work.


- Yes, compared to the losses and the worst position reached, ground had indeed been recovered. Nevertheless when it ended it ended in a bogged down stalemate.


The Chinese were being beaten all around the bord. They had just attempted an offensive which ended in complete disaster.


- Yup, IMO there it is; that's the kind of wilful blinkered certainty that could really lead to an all out nuclear war one day.


There's nothing to gain from anyone using nukes. Just spouting out useless rhetoric like what I've quoted above there isn't a real argument.


- If you say so. I'd point out that it has also been tried and failed numerous times too.


I've given real, solid examples. You haven't.


I completely disagree with your analysis.....and I am surprised to hear an American talk like this considering.


If you're talking about Iraq, or Vietnam, you're a fool. These aren't all out wars. Our military hasn't even come anywhere close to reaching its full power in either case. Guerilla war is political, much like terrorism. You can't win a real war this way. You can not stop an enemy army like this.


As for people angry at their government? That's much harder to guage.

But by that standard there isn't a government in the west not criticised but I don't foresee any kind of serious revolution.


You know, there are a few articles you should try reading.

Angry farmer protest turns violent:
Source - english.epochtimes.com...

Chinese women threaten suicide over unfair court system:
news.bbc.co.uk...

99% of funds for poor farmers embezzled:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Article detailing feelings on corruption:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Chinese people angry over taxes:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Disgruntled unemployed workers not allowed to protest:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Farmers attack tax officials:
news.bbc.co.uk...

I think this makes my case well enough. The Chinese people are angry with the government over many things. The situation may not be that much different then the way the Russian people originally welcomed Germans.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


I suggest you look at the real troop numbers. There were 40,000 UN troops there, and over 300,000 Americans. The UN troops came after the Americans, and served in the back of the line. Americans were doing the real work.


oh really? so what were the argyll's doing under fire in the front line section near Songju eh? went out for a stroll and got lost ? doubt it, the aryglls were there with americans fighting hell we asked for ur help and u bombed us.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

oh really? so what were the argyll's doing under fire in the front line section near Songju eh? went out for a stroll and got lost ? doubt it, the aryglls were there with americans fighting hell we asked for ur help and u bombed us.


The lines in Korea fluxuated greatly. Our troops were backed into the tip of the peninsula at one point. UN troops were bound to have to fight at some point. The island was taken by Americans, and the counter-offensives against the Chinese were fought by Americans.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
What im concerned with is not a Chinese invasion or external War, but a Civil war. It seems to me the ruling communists are only trying to build up its military to keep the country together and not splitting apart. China has not been united for long periods of history so there is no real historical or wthnic reason that it should stay so, like the Soviet Union. If pro-democrratic forces overrun the capital or one of the provinces breakes away, the military is perfect to fight a civil war. Other weapons are only there to establish respect with other countries and not necessarily offensive operations. One example is Taiwan. While the Chinese could push them enough to enable an invasion, they lack the logistical support to launch a full scale invasion, aka transports and amphibious assault ships. So I see real internal political problems more than an imperialistic nation.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The lines in Korea fluxuated greatly. Our troops were backed into the tip of the peninsula at one point. UN troops were bound to have to fight at some point. The island was taken by Americans, and the counter-offensives against the Chinese were fought by Americans.

no it wasnt purely taken by americans it was a joint effort.
please dont think america has faught every war on its own.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I can't think of any wars the US has fought and won on its own since what, the American Civil war or something like that. Because as we all know WWI and WWII were the work of the Allies. Yes the British helped us out in the WWII Pacific Theater too. Korea was a UN action that the US led. Vietnam we were working with the South Vietnemese troops. The Gulf Wars have involved Coalalitions involving mostly European nations. Especially the British. So if you look at it we've been fighting with allies for over a century. Thanks to the UK and all our other allies.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Some people said that different countries have different histories,bur there is a fact:
Before the oil and gas in South Chinese Sea were found,it's before 1979(i cant remember the exact year),those countries admit that those islands was belonged to China.
After the oil and gae were found ,they changed their faces,saying:"It's belonged to me."
Whose history is true,we can judge it from the fact.
Which is more funny,someone said Chinese imigrate to Taiwan when it turned red.Who told you ,you should ask him to let a doctor examine his brain. If Taiwan was not part of China,US would not leave it to China,because it's so powerful.It could have been caputured by US.
Soebody said J10 is less advanced than JSF and F22,so it is Useless.I want to say:Rome is not built up in one day.Surely China can,t make a fighterplane which is as advanced as US-Made,but TAKING THE FIRST STEP IS VERY IMPORTANT.I know some of the Americans hope China cant make fireplane herself forever.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Justicer]

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Justicer]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

I'm just pissed at this Chinese commie who's hell-bent on triggering WWIII.

hey communists are fine there aint nothing wrong wi em.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey communists are fine there aint nothing wrong wi em.


False. As a Brit you should know better.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit


False. As a Brit you should know better.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

oh really?
care to exsplain your comment?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
oh really?
care to exsplain your comment?


I don't have the inclination to argue against communism but every single attempt at communism has been a dismal failiure.


Originally posted by devilwasp
best trained troops huh? doubt it, every one knows britain is the master at training, hell our marines are the best....


British and american marine forces aren't strictly comparable as our's are commandos.


[edit on 25-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

British and american marine forces aren't strictly comparable as our's are commando's.


they are still marines. they arnt SF forces.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
see this!



[edit on 26-8-2004 by chinatea]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join