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.

 

US asks China to explain why it wants carrier

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by ateuprto
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


My first question would be what country you reside in?

We ARE a peaceful nation, and despite your simplistic point of view, the rest of the "Western" world is just as dirty as we are. I think you forget the fact that many of the conflicts the United States of America enters are because they are asked to do so on behalf of your "peaceful" European nations. The "War on Terror" is a different story, however it is one that is much, MUCH more complex than a simple act of unwarranted aggression.
edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)




There was nothing peaceful happening when they illegally invaded iraq. Im not suprised that countries are going hardcore with there militery. Maybe its because they don't know who America will invade next, could very well be them!


That is fear-mongering nonsense not based in reality. We are not there for resources. We are not there because we hate Islam. The invasion of Iraq was not a wise choice, that coming from a man who has been deployed there. It was a short-sighted, reactionary decision made on non-existent and/or false intelligence. That is not to say that Saddam Hussein's regime was innocent of harboring individuals and organizations with the intentions of attacking the United States of America, because I assure you, he was. Had I been commander-in-chief we would have not started that campaign, though I am much more familiar with tribal, social and religious relations in the region. A strong-handed, brutal dictator has been necessary in many Arab nations. They are the only ones ruthless enough to control the widespread intercultural and inter-religious conflicts that exist there.

The United States of America is guilty of making poor decisions in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 attacks. I have no qualms with conceding to that. It is my (our) responsibility. I can assure you, however, that most of the scum we are currently engaged with in Afghanistan and Iraq today are horrible human beings. They slaughter men, women and children knowingly and intentionally. Not in isolated cases of insanity, but as widespread and accepted doctrine. Their perspectives are so warped and ingrained that it would scare you. I have no problems with our killing these jerk-offs, but I have also seen what they are capable of first-hand.

The point is that we are not some insane war-machine, wantonly attacking whoever we deem unworthy. There are plenty of nations we have had issues with for decades that we have not engaged militarily. That is because they have not presented a threat to our nation militarily. When men are willing and able to inflict mass civilian casualties on our own soil and abroad, do you expect us to sit back and wait for the next attack? How does one guarantee safety without proactively hunting down and engaging those who intend to kill as many of our countrymen and women as possible? How does one guarantee safety without actively engaging and tracking those who have every intention and all the funding necessary to procure a nuclear weapon? They are not seeking nuclear weapons as a means of mutually assured destruction, I.E. Defense. They are seeking these weapons with no other intent than to detonate them on Western European and U.S. American soil.

I can agree that our preemptive doctrine with regards to military force is seemingly unnecessary and in many cases backfires, but it is a necessity in this day and age. We, among other nations, have learned our lessons the hard way. There is simply no way to guarantee "homeland security" from the homeland anymore. EVERY CIVILIZED NATION participates in global intelligence gathering and preemptive military actions. I will give you $1000 if you can give me a nation who does not.

Saw you are from the UK, do you find your own nation exempt from any of this? If so, take me to fairytale land with you.
edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ateuprto
EVERY CIVILIZED NATION participates in global intelligence gathering and preemptive military actions. I will give you $1000 if you can give me a nation who does not.


Liechtenstein, it has no military. Now are you going to send a cheque or cash?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by ateuprto
EVERY CIVILIZED NATION participates in global intelligence gathering and preemptive military actions. I will give you $1000 if you can give me a nation who does not.


Liechtenstein, it has no military. Now are you going to send a cheque or cash?


Iceland has no military, send your cash there too.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


I hate to use wikipedia, but it was the first thing that came up after 2 seconds of "intense" research.

en.wikipedia.org...

They have a "defense force" much like Japan. If you think for a minute they are not active in the intelligence realm and are not using other forces, I.E. the U.S. Military through proxy you are dreaming.

Last time I was deployed there were Icelandic forces in Iraq. Try again.
edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


The population is 35,000. I hope my point was not lost. When I said civilized nations, I should have said LARGE civilized nations.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ateuprto
 


What about Liechtenstein?

They along with about a dozen other countries have no military.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


read above. Besides, out of 3 paragraphs of information all you people want to talk about is the nations with a military part, which was not nearly the main point of the whole discussion.
edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ateuprto
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


I hate to use wikipedia, but it was the first thing that came up after 2 seconds of "intense" research.

en.wikipedia.org...

They have a "defense force" much like Japan. If you think for a minute they are not active in the intelligence realm and are not using other forces, I.E. the U.S. Military through proxy you are dreaming.


Again the US military occupied iceland for its strategic position, not for the benefit of the Icelanders.

Same for Australia, Britain and other countries. The only reason the US cares there is their strategic position to launch strikes and intelligence gathering.

I am not fooled that the US has "our" interests at heart, the only people they care about is themselves and are just using everybody else.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
You were wrong, just admit it.

Theres a dozen other countries too and youd wriggle out of that as well like all welchers do when theyve been proved wrong.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JennaDarling

Originally posted by ateuprto
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


I hate to use wikipedia, but it was the first thing that came up after 2 seconds of "intense" research.

en.wikipedia.org...

They have a "defense force" much like Japan. If you think for a minute they are not active in the intelligence realm and are not using other forces, I.E. the U.S. Military through proxy you are dreaming.


Again the US military occupied iceland for its strategic position, not for the benefit of the Icelanders.

Same for Australia, Britain and other countries. The only reason the US cares there is their strategic position to launch strikes and intelligence gathering.

I am not fooled that the US has "our" interests at heart, the only people they care about is themselves and are just using everybody else.



What the heck are you on about? You tried to argue that Iceland was without a military and are not involved in conflicts. They are deployed in Iraq and have a strong defense force.

Now you are arguing that we have bases in foreign nations only for strategic importance? No SH*T! Why else would you have a military base. These countries give us those bases because they are on-board with the U.S. simpleton. They enjoy the extra security it provides and value the strategic importance as much as we do, which is another point in proving that it's not just the United States involved.

Anything else?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
You were wrong, just admit it.

Theres a dozen other countries too and youd wriggle out of that as well like all welchers do when theyve been proved wrong.



I am not wriggling, They may aswell not have a military, it is effectively zero, if it is there to stop an invasion, too late, the US already invaded.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 




Thanks for that I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants.

Screw America and their self righteous attitude. Instead of bombing civilians to hell with the sad excuse of promoting democracy or saving them from slaughter why not fix your country first.

I wish someone could put the bully in its place, but hey the way they are going about it they might just put themselves in place. I just dont think its fair to drag the rest of the world down with them because they cant control their spending. Most of which is going to fund unjust and illegal wars. They hypocrasy would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.

Bleh!!!!

edit on 11-8-2011 by demoncleaner because: I could tell u but then id have to kill you




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
You were wrong, just admit it.

Theres a dozen other countries too and youd wriggle out of that as well like all welchers do when theyve been proved wrong.



Jesus man, okay, there are a handful of SMALL nations with no strategic value or resources that deem them worth invading without a large military. It has VERY LITTLE to do with my whole point. Your focus on one small facet within my main argument implies that you have nothing else worth of value to add to the discussion. YOU GOT ME!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


I was referring to him, not you.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I will say it yet again, China is our enemy, they are Communists, their goal is the overthrow of Western Democracies and they don't care how they achieve it, nor how long it takes to achieve their goals. We should not be engaged with China in any way, instead there should be a bamboo curtain to replace the iron curtain.

Chinese expansionism should be resisted at all costs, production facilities should be removed from China and brought back to the western countries. Even worse most internet security companies have strong Chinese presence, so all that technology you hope is keeping your data safe and sound is compromised, because it's a damned sight easier to break something if you know exactly how it's put together!

Pearl Harbour will look like a small oversight when the Chinese dragon rises in the East and strikes at the heart of what we all hold dear! In 20 years any sort of open forum like this will be a distant memory as we all shuffle about in our Mao suits waving our little red books in the air!

How the hell the US has become so lax with regards to communism I do not understand. They stand for everything the US stands against, yet they can't get close enough!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ateuprto
 


If you were wrong about the bit you were most sure about, the rest of your points arent even worth responding to.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
One thing that really annoyed me was my country was "NEUTRAL" during wars and is still classed as "NEUTRAL" and other countries are also classed as "NEUTRAL" but during the Gulf war II, they let the US fly in their airspace.

There was a huge uprorar that that broke our (and other countries) neutrality and put us at risk.

Neutral means NEUTRAL, let them fly around us.

No support in ANY FORM at all for military whether intelligence gathering or otherwise.

America via NATO is slowly removing all NEUTRAL countries off the map, that is a BAD thing for everybody as eventually there would be no safe place on the planet at their rate.


edit on 11-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by ateuprto
 


If you were wrong about the bit you were most sure about, the rest of your points arent even worth responding to.


Are you serious? Read my post and come back. What you just said is indicative of PURE IGNORANCE. I mis-worded my original post and now you deem the rest of my opinion not worth reading? I'm glad intelligence is in such abundance around here.

You are incapable of responding intelligently to the main points of my argument, that is the only assumption you leave me with.

If you wish to prove me wrong, and I hope you do, let's start with this little bit.




The point is that we are not some insane war-machine, wantonly attacking whoever we deem unworthy. There are plenty of nations we have had issues with for decades that we have not engaged militarily. That is because they have not presented a threat to our nation militarily. When men are willing and able to inflict mass civilian casualties on our own soil and abroad, do you expect us to sit back and wait for the next attack? How does one guarantee safety without proactively hunting down and engaging those who intend to kill as many of our countrymen and women as possible? How does one guarantee safety without actively engaging and tracking those who have every intention and all the funding necessary to procure a nuclear weapon? They are not seeking nuclear weapons as a means of mutually assured destruction, I.E. Defense. They are seeking these weapons with no other intent than to detonate them on Western European and U.S. American soil. I can agree that our preemptive doctrine with regards to military force is seemingly unnecessary and in many cases backfires, but it is a necessity in this day and age. We, among other nations, have learned our lessons the hard way. There is simply no way to guarantee "homeland security" from the homeland anymore.

edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster
And if I was a Chinese diplomat fielding the question, my response would be, Shut up, dickwad. You owe us so much money, we could have come and repo-ed one of yours, you blathering cauldron of putz, so shut your pie hole and scurry back to one of your fourteen carriers before I call due a couple of trillion.


Usually when a large loan is repossessed on they call the local Sheriff department in.

Who's China gonna call to pull a repo on the US?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

US asks China to explain why it wants carrier


economictimes.indiatimes.com

As China commenced sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, the US has sought an explanation from Beijing why it needs this kind of equipment and asked it to be more transparent about its power projections.
(visit the link for the full news article)




Uh-oh! Bad tactic. Surely, they will ask why we spend more money on "defense" issues than the rest of the world combined.

Wait! Maybe we (in the US) should be asking that question.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join