The Coming War With China: Evidence!

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradiselost333
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Well Im glad you are not in charge you will surrender before
the battle

most of info in the video was hogwash mixed with random facts, IMO..anyhow. don't fear the Chinese take em out ...that is if they try something stupid


Nice evidence and facts... oh wait... I am not going to waste energy on trying to argue with non- substantive posts like this so I'll just repeat; the facts speak for themselves. They are already executing thier stated plan and we can't afford to ignore it. Also the only hogwash around here is you claming I would surrender where that came from who knows. I am sounding the alarm here while you have your head in the sand.

edit on 11-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
After watching both videos i can safely say that this is just a bunch of wild speculation, no evidence or sources whatsoever are provided for these wild speculations... surprised to see so many ATS;ers swallowing this, i thought we where more intelligent than to believe such things at point value?

These ports, while true that china uses them, there is a simple reason for this: it is much cheaper than to pay the port fees for the amounts of goods they export all over the world daily right now, and the reason for this is because they have all the factories since their labour is really cheap... they are the kings of producing goods for the rest of the world atm. There doesn´t have to be a hidden agenda behind everything...



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Why can't we afford to ignore it. Apparantly your saying America is lost already so what exactly do you expect us to do?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 





I am not convinced of the authenticity of the statements attributed to the 80 year old former Vice-Chairman Of China's Military Commission.


Their actions prove the speech is authentic. We cannot afford to be in denial about this.

reply to post by kro32
 



Why can't we afford to ignore it. Apparantly your saying America is lost already so what exactly do you expect us to do?


I have not said America is lost. Why would I bother sounding the alarm if I thought all was lost? On the contrary it is time to wake up check the attitude the apathy and unite our country.


edit on 10-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
What should we do? Pre-emptively strike at China?

Are you advocating war?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
OK, just as China is playing our friend and trading partner now and the original OP suggests its just a Red Dragon waiting to strike at CONUS, how about considering it may be much more plausible that any China/Russia axis may be one and the same situation. China and Russia fought major land wars as recently as 1965, 66' so just because both were governed by Communist's does not mean their is any love lost between these two nations.

It is even highly likely that in the mid-sixties the Russian's (KGB) sent a submarine to launch a nuclear missile strike on Pearl Harbor (RE; Google RED STAR ROGUE) disguised as a Chinese submarine in the hopes that the U.S. would then eliminate the "Chinese problem" for Russia. Red Star Rogues author surmises this incident led to U.S. "Detente' with China during the Nixon administration. The incident has much to do with the "Glomar Explorer" if you want to look that up also, anyway there is long history of duplicitous dealings between Russia and China.

I think logistically it would make much more sense for China to threaten Siberia for its vast untapped resources which are close to home and look for growing room in Southeast Asia by reducing indigenous populations prior to colonization. Lets not forget China also had a war with Vietnam in 76' over border dispute.

Look at it this way if we (U.S.) had China's issue's would we look to go all the way to Asia or would we first look both North and South? Logistically it would make much more sense to have a successful outcome to stay on the Continent.

In that scenario I can imagine the U.S. unable to respond or unwilling to respond given current economic and military deployment status.

Seems it would make much more economic and military sense to go that route using all the elements in the original OP - all they have to do is find a way to counter Russian Strategic force capabilities, really that's the only thing that's kept them from Siberia for decades now.

Logically one has to ask "why transport your military 5000-7000 miles with tenuous and vulnerable supply lines when you can go right next door" To attack CONUS actually leaves their homeland ripe for counter-attack from more traditional enemies.

Now with all that said I do believe China is a great threat because I believe it would enjoy the U.S. reduced to third world servitude. Far better to accomplish this through proxies such as North Korea, Iran via EMP strike etc. or continuing to economically strangle us by controlling external energy supplies which China is diligently and progressively working on. Or both methods in long run.

No need for direct confrontation of a nation with the means to annihilate then? eh.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


That's the same point I made in the beginning of this thread.

China and Russia are hardly best friends.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Too many people under estimate China's military, they are quite technologically advanced. Their have been several comparisons to this being a second cold war/arms race. But the thing that bothers me is NOT their chemical,bio,nuclear weapons, but the fact they have a population of over a Billion people, so make that male 18-45 its at least 200-300 million. We can;t handle that many opponents



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
www.dailypaul.com...

China has 64 MILLION empty houses. They are building cities that are just sitting there, no people at all. I don't think they will be looking to conquer America any time soon. As one general said, It would be impossible to invade the American mainland, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



OK, just as China is playing our friend and trading partner now and the original OP suggests its just a Red Dragon waiting to strike at CONUS, how about considering it may be much more plausible that any China/Russia axis may be one and the same situation. China and Russia fought major land wars as recently as 1965, 66' so just because both were governed by Communist's does not mean their is any love lost between these two nations.


You bring up some good thoughts. It is true Russia and China do not have any love lost for each other. However they do have an alliance with each other. Russia has said they would like China to act now as they know the longer China waits the stronger they will get. They both understand that in the end they will probably fight it out for king of the hill if their plan succeeds but they know they need to cooperate to eliminate the US first. The Russians did back Mao and were instrumental in China becoming communist. It is the gang mentality, as long as they are both satisfied they can work together but as soon as one gang wants to expand their territory then they are bitter enemies.


I think logistically it would make much more sense for China to threaten Siberia for its vast untapped resources which are close to home and look for growing room in Southeast Asia by reducing indigenous populations prior to colonization. Lets not forget China also had a war with Vietnam in 76' over border dispute.


China has plenty of land but that land does not have enough resources. They want the US resources. They already have 100 million of their people in Africa and pretty much control that continent in terms of resources and commerce but it is still not enough they want the US resources and land. They know we are sitting on the largest oil deposits on the planet in the Dakotas.


with all that said I do believe China is a great threat because I believe it would enjoy the U.S. reduced to third world servitude. Far better to accomplish this through proxies such as North Korea, Iran via EMP strike etc. or continuing to economically strangle us by controlling external energy supplies which China is diligently and progressively working on. Or both methods in long run.


Yes this is the point of the videos. North Korea and Iran, Syria, Russia, even Pakistan has agreed to alliance with China and China issued a warning to the US recently that any attack on Pakistan by the US would be considered an attack on China.


China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation. www.eutimes.net...


We can no longer deny this the evidence is all around us. I was hoping to find the full 4 hour video series on google video or youtube or even torrent but have not been able to. It really lays things out very clearly. Also many of the south American countries have allied with China and or are in debt to them also.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

I confess I did not watch the vid's b/c it's late here and I'm tired, but may I just post one thought related to this statement...



But if they take out our Grid with an EMP and release biological weapons etc. then wait a little they figure they can walk in and just mop up with little resistance as the people will be sick, dead & dying, without electricity, starving, and in chaos.

...if they take out our grid, they may render our lands uninhabitable due to the inability to keep all of the nuclear facilities from melting down and the spent fuel from heating up and reacting again. Forgive me for asking, but was that covered in either of the videos?
edit on 7/10/2011 by new_here because: spelling



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I will go out on a limb here and say IF we go to war with China it is going to be becuase they begin attacking Thailand. The US's policiy is to back up Thailand in this situation. There was actually an article in Popular Mechanics about this about a year ago



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by hawkiye


...if they take out our grid, they may render our lands uninhabitable due to the inability to keep all of the nuclear facilities from melting down and the spent fuel from heating up and reacting again. Forgive me for asking, but was that covered in either of the videos?
edit on 7/10/2011 by new_here because: spelling


You know that is actually a very valid point based on the loss of Diesel generation capability experienced recently in Japan in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami.

An EMP may also knock out those back-ups at U.S. facilities if not hardened and I'd suspect they are not.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by hawkiye
 

I confess I did not watch the vid's b/c it's late here and I'm tired, but may I just post one thought related to this statement...



But if they take out our Grid with an EMP and release biological weapons etc. then wait a little they figure they can walk in and just mop up with little resistance as the people will be sick, dead & dying, without electricity, starving, and in chaos.

...if they take out our grid, they may render our lands uninhabitable due to the inability to keep all of the nuclear facilities from melting down and the spent fuel from heating up and reacting again. Forgive me for asking, but was that covered in either of the videos?
edit on 7/10/2011 by new_here because: spelling


Good point, I don't think it is addressed in the youtubes I posted but may be in the full 4 hr presentation. My thoughts are that the nuclear facilities all have back up power systems. However I do not know if they are hardened against EMP. I would think they should be. That would be a good thing to find out. Also I'd like to see a map of all the facilities and see just how much of our land would be uninhabited if most or all of them melted down. Thanks for bringing that up.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


you stole that concept from a video game lol



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Based on logistics, economics, military capabilities and political considerations I really think we have one or two decades on this issue.

I know the vids are inflammatory but the reality is there exists greater and much easier gain in the Eurasian theater for the close immediate future.

If you are looking at 10 to 20 year time-frame then I'm all in agreement.

Our immediate issue at hand is to negate the proxy threat however that may need to be done. As an aside I've always considered Bush's wars and basing agreements just by looking at the maps as an unvoiced attempt to isolate Iran but short of an invasion.

Just another Chinese proxy with bad Ju Ju

To bad he could not voice the real concern to an unacceptable public not capable of seeing the big picture.

Alas Babylon!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ABWarrior58
 



I did not! those come from reading much history and fictional plausibility My game is RED ALERT where I will electrocute you every time LOL!!

The defense's I set up are impenetrable!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
After watching both videos i can safely say that this is just a bunch of wild speculation, no evidence or sources whatsoever are provided for these wild speculations... surprised to see so many ATS;ers swallowing this, i thought we where more intelligent than to believe such things at point value?

These ports, while true that china uses them, there is a simple reason for this: it is much cheaper than to pay the port fees for the amounts of goods they export all over the world daily right now, and the reason for this is because they have all the factories since their labour is really cheap... they are the kings of producing goods for the rest of the world atm. There doesn´t have to be a hidden agenda behind everything...


Yeah I guess the fact thier their actions match the stated plan is just wild speculation. And the fact that Communism has never done anything but expand through war and bloodshed. And the fact the China has already gobbled up most of Asia much of Afirca and hundreds of nations are indebted to it and they have bought land ports and manufacturing on all major continents according to thier stated plan. Yeah that's all just wild speculation along with their stated goal of preparing for war always and there unprecedented military build up in numbers weapons and sophisticated technology etc.



CHINA is preparing for conflict ''in every direction'', its Defence Minister says...

''In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction,'' General Liang Guanglie said in an interview published by state-backed newspapers in China.

www.theage.com.au...

China is holding back selling their natural resources while buying up America’s ( maybe using their’s to build up their military?
www.reuters.com... [/ex

Here we have them stating they are perpetually preparing for war. What more do you want it all adds up.

Oh and the have unloaded 97% of thier holdings in US treasury bonds but hey this is all just wild speculation... Sigh!
edit on 11-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by hawkiye
 


If you are looking at 10 to 20 year time-frame then I'm all in agreement.


Agreed. I think it's not yet going to happen, but will likely be an eventual outcome of the depletion of resources.

It's just too soon for that to be the case.

I actually think it could start this decade, but is still at least a few years off.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by hawkiye
 


If you are looking at 10 to 20 year time-frame then I'm all in agreement.


Agreed. I think it's not yet going to happen, but will likely be an eventual outcome of the depletion of resources.

It's just too soon for that to be the case.

I actually think it could start this decade, but is still at least a few years off.



I am definitely in agreement there as the strategic elements progress to the point where justification of risk asserts itself.





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join