Chinese Troops Deploying In North Korea, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 47 times


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:18 AM by Ben81
reply to post by SLAYER69




I wonder if China is just moving into place in order to help facilitate the eventual unification of the Koreas?


Very plausible .. to .. first thing positive i have heard about this news thx


i think they will try to help for this unification and defend NK at the same time

very very good intelligent move from China we have there
they are good at Chess
edit on 1/18/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:18 AM by getreadyalready
reply to post by Ben81



China does not need more land. It is majorly rural, and it ranks pretty low on the "population density" scale.

Population per square mile



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:20 AM by Skippy1138
reply to post by SLAYER69



Slayer you beat me to it but I was going to say pretty much the same thing.If you believe the Wikileaks info, it doesn't sound like China is thrilled with Crazy Kim's recent antics.
This might be more of a "watchdog" type thing rather than China getting ready to support NK in some kind of conflict....


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:21 AM by macman
Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to
post by SLAYER69



Slayer you beat me to it but I was going to say pretty much the same thing.If you believe the Wikileaks info, it doesn't sound like China is thrilled with Crazy Kim's recent antics.
This might be more of a "watchdog" type thing rather than China getting ready to support NK in some kind of conflict....


Or it could be that China does not want its interests attacked?


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:22 AM by Ben81
reply to post by macman



Very good point indeed

the choice belongs to Obama at the end
Nasty invasion or no blood invasion


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:24 AM by macman
Originally posted by Ben81
reply to
post by macman



Very good point indeed

the choice belongs to Obama at the end
Nasty invasion or no blood invasion


That is based in the idea that Obama controls the masses.
I think blood will come either way. One is just faster then the other.


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:25 AM by Ben81
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to
post by Ben81



China does not need more land. It is majorly rural, and it ranks pretty low on the "population density" scale.

Population per square mile



They have a Billion peoples .. thats many mouths to feed .. and many rice farms to create

just look here in Canada .. we are the second biggest country in the world with the biggest fresh water reserves

30 millions people .. the government give us cash to make more babies lol

can you tell me what they do in China related to making babies ???

you have the answer right there
edit on 1/18/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:32 AM by glome
reply to post by getreadyalready



This is very reasoned analysis. China is trying, as is their right, to assert more influence on the region and in the world stage. They would undo the last decade of success by allowing NK to pick a fight with SK (one of China's largest trading partners), alienating Japan, the US and the West.

When a small country like NK allows a larger power to have a military presence within its borders there should be some concern that the larger power is there to influence things to their benefit. China is not going to tag team up with NK to fight some ideological war against capitalism. The Chinese government would not be able to survive such a miscalculated decision- their people would overthrow the government once the economy crashed.


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:45 AM by getreadyalready
reply to post by purplemer



#1. there are 200 million armed Americans, nobody can mount an invading force of 200 million.
#2. a large number of those 200 million are capable of much more than "playing rambo."
#3. it is expensive and tactically disadvantageous to fight an enemy far from your own resources.

200 million armed Americans, plus our regular military, on our home turf, with technological advantages, and with much survival and military training is a significant force to reckon with.

The fact is, nobody will invade the US, and the US won't invade any major power like China. All future wars will be done by proxy in places like Korea and the Middle East. They will be fought as a means of commerce and diplomacy. The US, Russia, EU, and China will never face off head to head. There is too much to lose and very little to gain. It is much more profitable to start skirmishes in smaller areas, and then support both sides while negotiating behind the scenes to split up the regions resources and rebuilding contracts.


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 09:49 AM by Ben81
reply to post by SLAYER69



Maybe .. but many are really undiscipline

+80% of the US marines are like them in this video


VS



who think will pussy out ? at first sight of the enemy ..
a real powerfull trained army this time ..
taliban is not a powerfull trained army .. thats the difference
edit on 1/18/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 10:01 AM by mamabeth
reply to post by Pervius



There are still many americans who have the know how
to manufacture what we need.
If we are pushed too hard,we will push back.


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 10:20 AM by SLAYER69
Originally posted by Ben81
who think will pussy out ? at first sight of the enemy ..
VS




Yeah they Look great marching I'll admit.
But exactly how much Real World combat experience do they have?

That's the real difference
edit on 18-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 10:23 AM by macman
reply to post by Ben81



Difference between Taliban and US forces is Taliban is a guerrilla force using guerrilla tactics.
US Military is still, for the most part, a traditional military force.

The Taliban, and if needed, US citizens, would/will resort to Guerrilla tactics.

Chinese army invasion would be along the lines of a traditional military.
There is a reason why the Japanese were apprehensive on attacking/invading the US.

I would take 100 US military vets, with personal owned weapons over 200 Chinese regular army any day, any time.
edit on 18-1-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 10:33 AM by Ben81
reply to post by macman



I would take 100 US military vets, with personal owned weapons over 200 Chinese regular army any day, any time


If you know how to shoot a gun and you have a good aim ..
and you know some tactics to create ambush .. then i beleive

1 US marines = 1 Chinese soldier

Even a child can give a good fight against any soldiers


reply posted on 18-1-2011 @ 10:35 AM by getreadyalready
reply to post by Ben81



Really? Marching in unison? The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders work in perfect unison, and they look great doing it, but it doesn't say much about their military ability!

The US military has been in a constant state of war for almost 20 years. We wrote and re-wrote the books on urban warfare....quite literally! Petraeus is considered the world re-knowned expert on it.

I think ducking in and out of fox holes, caves, and city streets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Bosnia is a little bit better experience than marching in crisp clean uniforms.

Now, if Glee needs a new director, that is a different story.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 4 days ago with 94 member flags
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 8 days ago with 73 member flags
Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 6 days ago with 63 member flags
Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 8 days ago with 58 member flags
3 NATO Protesters Face Terror Conspiracy Charges
  Posted 9 days ago with 46 member flags