Russia saying Cold War 2 now on.

page: 8
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausername
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 




Seriously...

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

They also dumped the dollar to trade with their own currencies.



You might want to do a bit more homework. China Is 175.6% Dependent on the U.S. Alien Abduct was right; China needs the US a whole lot more than they do Russia. Thats why this talk of "war" is so incredibly stupid. A trade war is likely, an actual military conflict is not.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Some people can see the forest but can not see the trees.

China is not as dependent on the US as many suggest. The middle class in the US is spending less and less as their pay goes downhill.

When any country goes to War, their economy switches from domestic production to military production. If China ever makes that switch God help you! Their Economy would not shrivel up and die, it would expand exponentially just like the US economy did during WW2. It would be a huge boon for the whole of China.

Go ahead, attack Russia, see how Napoleon, Hitler and all the others felt when winter hit. The US will win on the plains and will get slaughtered in the mountains.

I will tell you this now so there can be no mistake. Attack China or Russia and the other will attack you. Russia would never allow the US to win against China because it knows it would be next. The reverse is also true.

If you have to fight a war, it is better to fight it on someone else's land.

These things combined give a very clear picture of what will happen if the US tries to go into Iran.

P



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Some people can see the forest but can not see the trees.

China is not as dependent on the US as many suggest. The middle class in the US is spending less and less as their pay goes downhill.


Their growing trade surplus speaks otherwise...


China’s overall trade surplus in 2011 was $155.1 billion, according to the Ministry of Commerce.

And how much of that surplus is related to America? Commerce Department figures show that, through the first 11 months of last year, China’s trade surplus against the United States was $272.3 billion. That’s up from $252.4 billion for the same period in 2010, a 7.9% increase.

The Commerce Department has not released the December trade number yet, and some are predicting that China’s surplus against us will top $300 billion when all the figures are in. Yet let’s assume, merely to be conservative, that China’s December surplus is zero. If December’s surplus is zero, then 175.6% of China’s overall trade surplus last year related to sales to the United States. That’s up from full-year figures for the three preceding years: 149.2% for 2010, 115.7% for 2009, and 90.1% for 2008.


Chinas economy is becoming more and more dependent on selling goods to the United States. Especially since consumption across Europe is down.


When any country goes to War, their economy switches from domestic production to military production. If China ever makes that switch God help you! Their Economy would not shrivel up and die, it would expand exponentially just like the US economy did during WW2. It would be a huge boon for the whole of China.


The above is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand economics. You're comparing two different eras, with two different countries that employ two different economic systems. China today is NOT a capitalist country. It is still very much so a centrally planned economy. This has created the illusion of wealth in China; but really its nothing but debt from the central planners. See, unlike the US economic model, Chinas model is dependent on fixed investment and exports. China cannot simply switch economic models because consumption is already too low in China (35% of Chinas GDP) while fixed investment is too high (60% of Chinas GDP).

The US boomed then primarily because the US was an emerging industrial powerhouse that had a free market driven economy. Internal consumption was high, as were the countries exports. Also the fact that the US was on the other side of the world meant that we had very little to fear in terms of invasion. This is truly how America became the superpower it is today. It was the only major power to come out of WWII relatively unscathed. Europe was essentially destroyed, as was Japan. So I think the comparison you're attempting to make is anecdotal, and frankly stupid.


Go ahead, attack Russia, see how Napoleon, Hitler and all the others felt when winter hit. The US will win on the plains and will get slaughtered in the mountains.


War with any major country is unthinkable at this point. The global economic paradigm is too interconnected making the stakes far too high for any country. That and thanks to nuclear deterrents. I'm happy that world wars are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Right now, they are not feasible for anyone.



If you have to fight a war, it is better to fight it on someone else's land.

These things combined give a very clear picture of what will happen if the US tries to go into Iran.

P


That requires logistics that neither country possesses. The US is the only country with the means and capability of projecting significant forces beyond its own shores.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


Way to go, is that the best you have. You call me Stupid while your whole argument goes down the toilet.

Current budget for the State of Texas alone is $80 Billion. You are rabbiting on like an amount of three and a half times that would make or break China.


$270 Billion will not break China! That is a ridiculous statement. I don't see where your take on economics is all that realistic. China on a war economy is a very powerful entity.

Oh, and China on a war Economy does not have to sink endless wealth into the profit margins of the elite. She can instead plow all of Her resources into bombs, tanks and other materials.

P



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The american government got too greedy after the collapse of the soviet union and successfully infiltrated into post warsaw pact nations thirsting for capitalist freedom. Of course russia does not like it, nor does it like the usa meddling in the middle east and helping rebels overthrow long-time ussr allies. The ussr, just like america has been trading weapons for oil, so the more america friendly they become, the less russia friendly they become. I think this is the reason for attacking libya and now attacking syria.

As for israel they only care about money. They can buy all the security they want that way.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobbieK
I'll be practicing what I learned at school and see what tables I can fit under. This isn't good. I'm eager but at the same time nervous as to what other moves will be taken in the coming weeks. :/

Thanks for the post OP. S&F

Are we going to buy into this? enough is enough.
Not sure what to do. Wish there was an organization where people meet to do something about this that has a solid plan. Most I see are just fringe groups led by a guy who thinks that aliens are coming or everything is a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
From what I understand, the cold war was a war of ideas between Capitalist America and Socialist USSR. These fundamental differences lead to an epic arms race and several proxy wars.

The situation seems to be very different now. There is no USSR anymore and America is in a state of extreme capitalism and warmongering. The size and scope of the old Soviet military is not something modern day Russia can equal. So, simply based on those facts I have my doubts about a `New Cold War.`

It is clear to me that Russia is developing it`s own economic zone totally removed from US influence. Russia is sitting on a lot of valuable resources and the US knows it. We all know that NATO is simply another arm of the US military. If NATO starts putting the screws to Russia, which they already have, it is important to look at why the US would have an issue with Russia.

Russia is trading with several nations in a currency exchange which does not require US greenbacks. That is enough to get the US gov. all hot under the collar considering that the US dollar remaining as the world reserve currency is in doubt these days. Also, many of the former Soviet Bloc nations are starting to work together again in developing an economic zone which does not require the United States to be involve. So, it seems clear that the US is being cut out of the action and they are proper angry about it.

So, I would not define the current problems Russia and America are having as a Cold War but more of a Economic war which could turn into an actual war if America gets totally cut off from the developing economic zone in former Soviet Bloc region.
edit on 30-12-2012 by freedomwv because: grammar and spelling



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by rock427
 


Way to go, is that the best you have. You call me Stupid while your whole argument goes down the toilet.


I never said you were stupid, I said your argument was stupid. However, your lack of substantive posting laced with ad hominems has me second guessing that assertion.


Current budget for the State of Texas alone is $80 Billion. You are rabbiting on like an amount of three and a half times that would make or break China.


What?! In total, China exports OVER $300 billion worth of stuff to the United States every year. America is by far Chinas largest trading partner. Without the US buying manufactured products from China, China would suffer a massive contraction in their already weak manufacturing sector. This means unemployment for millions of Chinese. And if US corporations were to completely pull out of China; Goodbye Chinese economy.


$270 Billion will not break China! That is a ridiculous statement. I don't see where your take on economics is all that realistic. China on a war economy is a very powerful entity.


Your general misunderstanding of economics and my post have only been surpassed by your failure to comprehend the words you read in front of you. Surely this is a case where your eyes have deceived you, since you've repeated the same thing essentially twice now, without much notice. It is your inability to explain succinctly that of which you clearly do not understand...

I already explained the differences that dealt with your vague argument. The US thrived during the wars not only from free market principals and the industrial revolution, but also because the continental US was not being attacked. Had the US been apart of the blitzkrieg, it is very likely that we would all be living in an entirely different alternate world today.

There are several issues with your argument that you've not properly thought out. China thrives off of the rest of the world when it is booming. When the rest of the world is no longer in their boom faze, China faces economic stagnation and contraction. This is because Chinas economic model is not designed to consume nor innovate. It is a system designed to "max out" employment opportunities at any and all cost while flooding the global markets with cheap Chinese manufactured goods. Without the West consuming Chinese products, China has nothing on the domestic front to offset the collapse in demand. Without markets to export their manufactured products, China faces an unruly public dealing with unemployment, which leads to riots and upheaval, then possible revolution. The Communist party bosses do not want this to happen.


Oh, and China on a war Economy does not have to sink endless wealth into the profit margins of the elite. She can instead plow all of Her resources into bombs, tanks and other materials.

P


Wrong, the communist party officials are the elite. They routinely bleed China of its wealth for their own personal gain. Corruption is a much larger issue in China than you could possibly hope to understand.
edit on 30-12-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PatifierAs long as we "the people" (not only the North Americans ones) doesn't step up and demand a change we are doomed. I'm working on it every day, ideas party, no fkn politicians, you will see...
 


Good luck on the Ideas Party, it sounds like a cool... well, you know.

I think we should eliminate all the parties but I understand we might have to play the party game to achieve that ultimate end. If one of your ideas is "end partisanship" and you are willing to kamikaze sacrifice your party one day if it achieves total dominance in order to finalize the end of partisanship, as President Monroe tried to do so many years ago, then count me in and I'll promote you for free!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The cold war never ended.

East and West have been fighting a proxy war - dirtying other peoples gardens, for years.


QV.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RooskiZombi
 




but if the Russian governments are actually building these bunkers to protect their people and are publicly and easily accessible regardless of your social status, I give them that one up on the US any day.


I've great admiration for the Russian authorities for looking out for their people by building UG bunkers that may (or may not) protect them, and they are doing this for ALL their people regardless of wealth or lack of social or political 'status'...When i was a boy growing up in England, the cold war propaganda was that Russians (or the Soviets) were merciless, cold blooded, little more than thugs and barbarians...England/GB only ever built UG bunkers for the elites, the politicians and the like, ironically using our/public money, and always kept secret from the public.

Of course, the authorities would argue the secrecy was to prevent HQ level bunkers being directly targetted in a strike, but thats no excuse for all the regional and local bunkers built to protect ruling classes, and local government people...it was to prevent the people that mattered, the public at large from gaining access to these structures in times of need.

The PTB claim these bunkers were 'for the continuation of government' purposes...BS!

Does an eradicated, irradiated, and minor % of people left alive who are not going to die in a couple of weeks from terrible fallout poisoning actually NEED a government?

No, they don't...what they needed was shelter, and that was denied to all of the public, which is astounding in comparisson to what the Russians have been building for their people over the last few years.

If the 'barbarians' and 'thugs' in Russia care enough to try and protect their own people...why wouldn't the 'civilized West do the same thing?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   


f Russia decides to close the sea routes the UK dies as we build nothing. Sorry but I put my money on America not winning a war, the UK even shut down and disbanded the Royal Obs Corps as well as our Aircraft makers and ship builders, Russia did not do that. Another reason we wont win is that the Russian people see they are worth fighting for to hold there country, in the UK & NATO we got nothing worth dieing for, ops sorry apart from dept.
reply to post by Alternative4u
 


Then we open the sea routes back open again...

So British Aerospace Systems are no longer the world's largest defence contractor also involved heavily in the manufacture of jets, ships and subs?

Russia, a nation that was completely ravaged by Communism, has something to die for compared to the equally debt-ravaged West?

What, snow? Yaks?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 






I think Putin has been a step or two ahead of our little game of checkers ...while he plays 3-D Chess


I think you give the Russians too much credit. They know the US wont go to war with them unless they push it too far, so they are just bouncing around the edges poking at us. I wouldn't call Afghanistan nor Iraq, a real true WAR with the US. Not like real WW3 action. All the Russians have are nukes. They would get their corrupt asses handed to them in a stand up fight. They are good at back alley brawls, they don't have the mojo to get in the ring all by their lonesome and duke it out with the US. They would lose, lose, lose, not just militarily, but think of all the money their mafia would lose. Not good for business.

Until Russian gets a hold of their malignant inner core they will be a second rate fighter. If they ever get their govno together.... look out CHINA!


V



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Russians don't like the idea of Americans setting yet another foothold in the ME region...They tolerated the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the US right under their nose!,perhaps because of a secret deal they have made with the Americans.And they turned their heads the other way when US took over Libya, and Influenced in Egypt's internal affairs....But they drew a red line when it came to Syria,because they know very well that Syria is Geo politically very important to the future relations between Russia {East in general} and the US...I think Syria will once again set up a borderline between the East and the West as it always been carrying that task during different periods of times throughout the history.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 






I think Putin has been a step or two ahead of our little game of checkers ...while he plays 3-D Chess


I think you give the Russians too much credit. They know the US wont go to war with them unless they push it too far, so they are just bouncing around the edges poking at us. I wouldn't call Afghanistan nor Iraq, a real true WAR with the US. Not like real WW3 action. All the Russians have are nukes. They would get their corrupt asses handed to them in a stand up fight. They are good at back alley brawls, they don't have the mojo to get in the ring all by their lonesome and duke it out with the US. They would lose, lose, lose, not just militarily, but think of all the money their mafia would lose. Not good for business.

Until Russian gets a hold of their malignant inner core they will be a second rate fighter. If they ever get their govno together.... look out CHINA!


I think a lot of people are underestimating the Russians. Yes, in terms of a conventional war, war with the US is suicidal. However, they could still sure put a hurting on us even in that scenario. That of course is assuming we fight the Russians on their own turf.

The fact is, the US is really the only military force on earth that is "close" to invincible. The USN is without a doubt the strongest naval force on the planet. So the US practically owns the oceans, it owns the skies with its fifth Gen F22's and soon to be commissioned F35's (not counting B2's, B1's, and a host of highly developed UCAV's). Everything from logistics, to military doctrine puts a force like Americas head and shoulders above the rest. But war really only should ever be used 'if' we are attacked or threatened.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Total number of people who have died slipping in the bathroom in just 2009....18,000.

Aprox. number of people who have died slipping in the bathroom since 9/11....230,000

I may be a bit off but I am close.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Are you asserting that fewer than 18,000 people have died as a result of conflict in the ME region in the last decade? I'm just trying to clarify. You're responding to a post which suggested that your statement that "More people die in a Month in the U.S. slipping in the Bathroom than have died in over a Decade of War in the Middle East" was not factual, by saying that 18,000 people died from slipping in the bathroom in 2009. 1

18,000 divided by 12 months (a crude estimate of the deaths per month due to slipping in the bathroom) is only 1,500 people for one thing, but even if we go with the entire year of 2009's total, 18,000 deaths, there have been far more total deaths as a result of just the Iraq war alone than that number. If you're just talking purely about U.S. casualties, the number - from what I can find - seems to still generally be considered to be between 4,000 and 5,000, considerably higher than our estimate of the monthly deaths from slipping in the bathroom.

I'm confused and, again, am just trying to clarify. Are you saying that isn't the case, and that fewer people died in the last ten years of war in the ME than die of slipping in the bathroom each month?
edit on 12/31/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification
edit on 12/31/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Happy New Year Everyone



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I admit I am off as far as how many have died per month...but then again the purpose of my statement still is viable as it shows just how low the U.S. Death toll in the Wars is in comparison to accidental deaths in the U.S.

I was using this statement more as an analogy but you are correct. Still do you not think you are being nit picky?

Is there not something of greater importance that you could say I posted was false?

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
in them days russia were painted as the bad boys.
im not sure if the roles have reversed and our leaders have become the bad boys





new topics
top topics
 
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join