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.

 

China Joins Russia, Orders Military To Prepare For World War III

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Not the same as saying the US is going to be overthrown, the constitution removed and control given to the military ho, is it??!1 Hmm???



Boy did you miss some US History.

The only way Lincoln could keep the North in charge of America was to get Russia's entire Atlantic/Pacific Naval fleets in Union ports.

It was Russia who helped the North beat the South. It was RUSSIA who wanted America to end slavery, not Lincoln.

After the North-Russian Alliance beat the South in the US Civil War......the US Civil Flag was removed from Federal buildings and the US MILITARY flag with the yellow fringe has flown over us ever since.

China knows it can NOT depend on Russia to save it. The "Boxer Rebellion" 100 years ago had the White boyz......US/Russia/Europe all gang up on China and defeat them.

China knows the White Boyz are out of money and are coming again. They trust Russia about as much as the Chinese in Hong Kong......not at all.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by 1116539997
 


The way things stand, now, we'd absolutely rape China in a military conflict. It really doesn't matter the rcumstances.
China, however, would be knocked back to the dawn of the industrial revolution.


A vietnam war vet once told me that : We couldn't defeat the viet cong cos we were actually fighting with the chinese 6th army.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
no need for third world war..we in the uk are dependent on russian gas,and chinese money...war will be fought on an economic and propaganda front.the west is ripping itself to pieces as it is,and making its self weaker.war serves no purpose any more,dollars and yen are the new battle ground.if china gets angrey,all they have to do is tell russia to turn the gas off



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by 1116539997
 


The way things stand, now, we'd absolutely rape China in a military conflict. It really doesn't matter the rcumstances.
China, however, would be knocked back to the dawn of the industrial revolution.


A vietnam war vet once told me that : We couldn't defeat the viet cong cos we were actually fighting with the chinese 6th army.


An expat I met in Asia actually was a translator for US forces during that way.
They captured a Chinese volunteer with the Vietcong.
They ended up sending him on a plane back to China in the end I think....



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Wouldn't it be easier for all the "powers" to sit at a table and discuss influences and then share all of them?
Idealistic I know but it would save a lot of time and money and possibly even make money at the same time.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 



A vietnam war vet once told me that : We couldn't defeat the viet cong cos we were actually fighting with the chinese 6th army.


China was involved in Vietnam, yes. It was the same with the Korean war - in which we won. (But, again, you won't find a whole lot of people with political or media careers who will speak too willingly on the issue in either wars.)

The reason we didn't win Vietnam was because it was treated as a policing action. We were never allowed to actually go in and get the enemy. There were agreed upon "no shoot" days - and we'd have to sit and watch the NVA move artillery into position for a nice addition to Reveille in the morning. We would fly bombers over SAM-sites under construction with the help of Russian ambassadors, and not be able to bomb them (we had to wait until they could shoot back and the Russians wouldn't have a dead envoy to be pissed about).

It's a perfect example of what happens when you let politicians fight a war.

Had we been allowed to fight the war in much the same manner as we fought the Korean war - we would have obliterated the NVA and torn the VC out by the roots. In Vietnam's case, they would probably not have ended up being divided between North and South - it would have ended up unified, just as it did, today.

reply to post by js331975
 



Wouldn't it be easier for all the "powers" to sit at a table and discuss influences and then share all of them?


Yes... and no.

We try this with China on a routine basis. We want their government to crack down on violations of international copyright. One of the things they frequently do is clone something, like a new processor, and sell it on their markets. Which makes their country a sort of "black hole," economically. Capital goes in... but doesn't come back out, because they are unwilling to purchase any other nation's goods.

China refuses to do this, and wants more free trade agreements and the like.

We could say, "Fine, we'll just start getting more of our clothing from Taiwan" - but that would be recognizing them as an independent, sovereign nation.... and China would have an aneurism. We could, honestly, pick up the slack from a loss of trade with China fairly easily from other under-invested regions of the world (South America and Africa, namely). It wouldn't be a seamless or painless transition - but more worth it in the long run, once we run the war and drug lords out with legitimate businesses that people would prefer to work for.

Anyway ... my point is that it's not always so easy.

The other end of things is that someone will always realize that they can kill someone and take what they have. Modifying this thought a little, they may see that people will pay to avoid being killed. You can't negotiate with people who want to have everything. They will pretend to negotiate for the things they need at the time - but then decide to use that gained power to take more from you and/or others when the time comes and they need it.


Idealistic I know but it would save a lot of time and money and possibly even make money at the same time.


It's not about money. It never is. It's about control.

There's a difference between someone who wants money and someone who wants control. Peace is always cost-effective and pays off in the long term. Mutual, ethical agreements almost always leave all parties stronger at the conclusion of that agreement/contract than if one had subjugated the others.

I can't say I understand the mentality or how it works. I can understand wanting wealth - the things I want and would like to try and build would cost absolutely staggering amounts of resources. However... I do not understand the quest for control. I don't want to rule over anything, really. Sure - being a leader or influential person to others is cool - but I have no desire to control and force others into anything.

Money is simply a medium in that regard. If you want to rule the world... you are going to need more than an evil laugh and a few henchmen.




top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join