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: 9
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
it seems pretty clear to me that the carrier is to enforce "ownership" of Taiwan, then of course when Kim Jong IL dies they can swoop in and finally take North Korea unchecked by South Korea. no other need for a carrier unless it is to restart the cold war and M.A.D. that however is just my opinion, i could be wrong.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Listen everybody needs a leader for now the USA is it. Leadership Happens to all the species in the world hence the top of the food chain. Anyone who thinks china can overide us (the US) is mistaken. They are still a third world country with no labor laws or unions. Im sorry to say but they are like we the U.SA. was like after WWII. Until then we will talk......... MY first post



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
This is my second post. this gets me sooo mad.
Do you as a non american pay taxes to the world? Prolly not. Me being an American, I do thru stupid foreign policy.
we work to give the rest of the world aid. plus pay to our social programs and yours where ever you may be. Im sick of everybody talking down about us americans.... we pay taxes to the world if u think about it. We really do. Households need a leader and if you want to think of the Earth as a houshold... We are the leader hands down until china loses its slave wage economy just like the USA before unions we cannot compete against a slave wage at all



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


And that will never happen. What are they going to do? Call the police? haha we are the world police. ha ha ha ha na na na na. No, but in all seriousness, the US attitude towards it is simply that they wont get money back, if it comes to it, we will just use our very powerful war machines (that we spent the money on) to shoo you away.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by loneranger26
 



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by InfamosImortal
 


The US after world war 2 was one of the best times in our nations history. You must be thinking of BEFORE world war 2. BEFORE world war 2, the US was not a dominant world super power. It competed heavily against many nations for top military and economy power. It was after world war 2 that our country flourished. The economy was booming, everyone was buying homes, having kids, you know, the traditional family lifestyle. Husband, wife, and two kids. Before the war the average citizen could barely afford one car, then suddenly each house had 2 cars. The cold war was when it really started getting bad,



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by ateuprto
 





That is because they have not presented a threat to our nation militarily.


You do realize, if you believe the 19 arab hijackers story, that the United states was not attacked by a military, and if that threat is justification enough to invade basically 3 countries now, then EVERY nation that has citizens that don't like the US, that also has an airport, should be invaded immediately.

also, better get some boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia as most of the hijackers (even some of the ones still alive i believe) are Saudis

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


I just saw this. I apologize for the delayed response.

It was not an officially recognized, nationally sponsored military attack against the United States, you are absolutely correct (unless as you mentioned, you get into alternate theories, which is obviously a whole different thread). The problem boiled down to willingly and knowingly letting individual "terrorist" groups and organizations operate freely within your territory. This bred the often-abused phrase of "state/nation sponsored terrorism." When the government knows that well-funded, fanatical and capable groups are planning mass casualty attacks against another nation; and REFUSES or is UNABLE to take care of it themselves, they have become a participant in the conflict. We had special missions units and special operations capable forces operating in Afghanistan for YEARS before 2001. We knew about the threat, and the rational leadership that existed within Afghanistan at the time invited us to aid them in tracking down these scum.

Saudi Arabia, believe it or not, actually takes terrorism extremely seriously. The Gulf States do not mess around, and while our cultural values and norms could not be any different, our intelligence agencies and militaries have a profound respect for each other. Saudi Arabia does more to take care of terrorists in their own country than Iraq or Afghanistan ever did. Pakistan is (was?) an ally, they, for a time were decent at at least hiding the terrorists operating within their borders. That, obviously, does not hold so true anymore. It's not as black and white as Afghanistan vs. The United States or Iraq vs... It's about establishing control over idiotic and brainwashed punks who are truly more savage and brutal in their thinking and actions than the much-despised "MSM" ever show. Believe that.

It's not about disliking The United States of America, it's about aiding and abetting organizations that plan on slaughtering as many civilians as they possibly can. Whether or not you believe it is entirely up to you, I for one have seen all this crap first-hand. It's much more profound and much more serious than you would probably imagine. See my earlier post about no longer being able to "establish homeland security from the homeland." Unfortunately, given the nature of those targeting Western European and U.S. American civilians and assets, there is no way to return to an isolationist doctrine and expect to be able to protect yourself. Those days are long gone.

I am curious about this third country of yours. I understand that in the Middle East we are still heavily involved in Iraq. In Asia we are still at war IN (not with) Afghanistan. Are you referring to Libya as the third? Last time I checked that was a NATO authorized action, and there are as many if not more European aircraft dropping ordinance than U.S. American. There are confirmed British, Dutch and I believe German special operations capable operators with boots on the ground there. I have yet to see any evidence of U.S. American special forces, though I think it would be naive to think we wouldn't have a few special unit assets on the ground.
edit on 12-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoSpace
 


No one wants to invade China, there is no need for protection. only about 1/3 of their territory is even livable. They have no threat whatsoever, so whats this carrier going to do? just sit in the harbor and look pretty?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ateuprto
 


I sort of agree with you. Any NATO tied nation will be hit by the terrorists hense the norway attacks. BUT is it right? Are our governments doing this to us or are we. WE as a WHOLE have to come together to decide. until then we are sheeples. Sorry to say. I wish i didnt print this. But this is what it is



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bobdigi
 


Are you sure the boy's in Washington are *Good Guy's?* I'm not so sure any of them are good guy's anymore. I do know that powerful Corp. and Wall Street have gotten into the House and is using that Power to steal, raid, pillage, and murder for their *Ends*...

I really don't think there are *many* good people in Washington. It's like driving at Rush Hour. You either *Go *their* speed* or die. You will not make it... No one wants to do the right thing anymore because of what they're going to lose.... in most cases it's the house's and the cars.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Same reason America has the "right" to have nuclear weapons and not allow others to have them for their self defense.


Because they can!

It's not about "protecting our freedoms" or anything life that, but allows $$$$$ for the government and 1% at the top freedom to do as they please around the world, to stuff their pockets, whilst preaching patriotism to the sheeple that follow their orders, and get shafted at the same time in the spoils of war and the productive gains that were wrought about from such endeavors.

And this is coming from a now awake former active military member.





Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I have a question why does America need to have 11, yes 11 active Aircraft carriers 10 of which are Nimitz class and have another 2 brand new aircraft carriers go into construction. Just so you know the first General R. Ford Class carrier is going to cost America approximately 14 billion dollars all in.

And why is it ok for America to have such a vast fleet of aircraft carriers unquestioned yet they can question China for building one, which is a soviet era converted carrier. Who ever gave America the right to ask such questions.

PS: this is not another “hate America thread” it just strikes me as somewhat hypocritical of America to turn round and question China’s need for one aircraft carrier when America has 11 and another two in the pipe line.


economictimes.indiatimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 12-8-2011 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by loneranger26
 


Yes I agree with you shortly after WWII we had or somebody had come up with this dept thing which naturally carrires debt. and that is where we went wrong. How Many people had credit before the 60's or 70's. That's
when in my opinion it started is with credit with interest



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


Only the strong will survive. I dont know if that is the natural way of life but i think it pertains to all of us mammals and animals( i feel bad for calling all the others animals)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by loneranger26
 


I think and i may be wrong is because of credit. Call it what you want. Before that if you didnt have the money to buy that or anything you could not. And that when Banksters came into the picture to make money out of thin air basically calling it interest. Think about what interest is. CREDIT. This in my opinion is where we the american people screwed up. We were looking for something easy and we found it in credit and look at where we are at now



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


No offense but, I am going to have to call you a liar. You knew what this was when you started it. If you don't like America chances are you never lived here. Chances are you live in a bubble where your mind can not be changed. I love America I have a great life not rich not poor. I praise out military for making this possible without them who knows where this country would be.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ateuprto

Originally posted by JennaDarling
What I would really like to see is China and Iran and all the rest park all their carriers and submarines in INTERNATIONAL waters, near Washington, after all America shows their "strength" by parking their carriers in the Gulf and what not around the world.

Seriously everybody should grow a backbone and play America at their own game. I commend Iran and China for having a backbone.


Watch the Americans throw a childish tantrum then.


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

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


Well Jenna, Darling, you want to see bloodshed then? Rest assured that if any of these nations stationed an aggressive military force off our coast they would be warned. They may be warned twice, but after that they would be sunk. Any reaction to this sinking would result in a military assault the likes of which the world has not witnessed. The U.S. military possesses the capability to cause mayhem in China and Iran that makes the 2003 "shock and awe" look like a dud bottle rocket. We could completely destroy both countries infrastructure without ever setting a boot on their soil.

I for one hope this never happens. There are more diplomatic means to achieve stability. We generally park our carriers in the gulf because we are engaged in two very hot conflicts in the region. Lets not forget WHY the U.S. has the largest military force projection on the planet.

You freaking people act like we are a throwback to the Nazi regime of the 30's and 40's. IF the U.S. wanted to destroy most of the world we would, because we certainly could. It's not that simple and a return to isolationism is not possible given the current state of globalization and neo-liberal doctrine so prevalent throughout the world.
edit on 11-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)


hey I have to agree with you on why the US have to have a carrier in the gulf, purely because they have so many of their armed forces stationed in the area, aside from a show of might, they are also there to ensure the safety of those who are serving in the area.

now bombing iran back to the stone age is definitely within the capabilities of the USA, in fact include every county in the world on that list (maybe except a few aftrican countries where the stone age is probably an upgrade).

in regards to your post, IMO not every country would just stand there waiting for the US to bomb it to shreds. Lets say China vs USA. No doubt with USA's military capabilities/technologies/navy...USA has a definite advantage, in fact would 99.9% win the war. But would the USA come out 'victorious'? I don't think you understand the true meaning of modern warfare. Modern warfare is not about the army/navy/airforce any more. Its about economics.

No doubt the USA can bomb china back to the stone age, in fact back to the dinosaur age, but wouldn't china's nuclear capabilities bomb america back like 100 years? are you that confident in America's defence systems that you think it would not allow just say 3 of China's nuclear war heads to enter America?

Like I said, war is not about fighting or the strength of the army, its about economics. Who wins the war is about who can rebuild or benefit from the war the most.

I am new to ATS, but to me a lot of people on here are americans and have an idea that USA army is about fighting with China or some other 'super power'. but let me tell you this, NON OF THE SUPER POWERS WILL FIGHT EACH OTHER. whats the point? it would just open up the window for another country to lead the world. British/Russia are the ones who would really benefit a war between China and USA. Not Chinese or Americans. It would just mean that both countries are f**ked up to a point where their citizens would probably starve.

Also, unless American a majority of the Chinese, China would probably rebuild much faster than America for the simple fact of man power. The society/economics is heavily reliant on the availability of man power (obviously technology as well but lets be honest, a nuclear war between the two countries would probably mean that there won't be much technology/money left).

so...basically I am just stating that war with china is not as straight forward as you might think; the strength of the US army.

Anyway back on topic, yeah IMO the USA should just shut up and mind their own business.

P.S before you start saying I am a brain washed communist, I am not....



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Three things

(1) Most people who have lived in China have the impression that the Chinese feel war is inevitable to allow China to wrestle global dominance from America.

Chinese people feel they should be the dominant global power and deeply resent the USA for being in that position.

(2) Chinese have no aptitude for engineering. Quite the opposite in fact.

Even if China had 11 carriers, their quality would still be much lower than the US carrier quality.

(3) The Chinese are essentially working from the script of the "Art of War" by SUN TZU

For instance,




I 18. All warfare is based on deception.

I 19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

III 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battlesis not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.



If anyone wants to understand much of the Chinese moves, read the book. Its quite short.

Here is a link with the book on-line

The Art of War



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


I agree with the taiwan issue that you mentioned. I reckon the Chinese got the carrier for 2 reasons, one is the ownership of taiwan, secondly is the struggle with the Philippians on the underwater oil supplies.

but north korea? you kidding right? why would china want a country with a majority of people in poverty? a country next to a hostile neighbour?

IMO, north korea is a buffer zone for China. an area to take the attention away for china. to me, absolute stability in an area is not necessarily a good thing. with north korea gone, who do you think the japanese and koreans would focus on then? obviously china. with north korea being the center of attention in the area, it allows for china to develop. anyway just my two cents, cause IMO, north korea is too easy of an take over for China.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:54 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)



Sorry.. China's first aircraft carrier?

Just from reading that this post already went astray.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
We should all have all the aircraft carriers we want.

Anyway... at least we asked! look on the bright side. This opens up the opportunity for China to ask us the same damn question.

It's called a conversation... hopefully.

edit on 12-8-2011 by ChaosMagician because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join