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.

 

Are we vulnerable to an invasion?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
apw100- Your points are well taken. However, he influx of Chinese in both Mexico and Canada have increased by ten fold over the last 5 years. All with enormous amounts of cash on hand. Any Google search will verify this. As far as the Cargo facility in the Bahamas - anything could be imported in those enormous cargo containers, includin the covert shipment of troops. I am NOT in ANY way saying this is absolutely the case, just a point of speculation. Mohammed Atta was supposdly a regular guy, with lots of cash on hand. Look at what this man did.




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Super powers do not engage in overt military operations with other superpowers. It is not economically feasible. Both economies would be devastated, sucking the world economy down with them.

Which leads me to the second point, the threat of an overt military operations would bring to bear the worlds attention. The world would polarize, and a engagment of superpower militaries would have the potential of erupting into a world war. As long as the war did not "go nuclear", the US is in a far better position to avoid "invasion".

Which leads me to my third point, the threat of a global thermonuclear war basically guarantees that overt military operations will never take place. I am not sure the nuclear capabilities of China, but the United States still has enough weaponry to turn the entire world into a barren waste land for generations.

Thus, any "war" with China would be a war of economics. Enter Cold War II. U.S. intelligence agencies have had many years of practical experience in that style of warfare. While the "war on terror" is new for them, a cold war is "right up their alley".

All this is just to say that an invasion by China of the continental United States is not going to happen.


But, lets go back to my second point and hypothesize that there would not be an escalation into Thermonuclear war.

Before China would be in a position to reach across the pacific and invade the United States, it must be secure domestically. India and China have not had the best relations in the past. Long term argeements could be put in place between India and the US and her allies (England, Australia, Japan) to persuade India to "assist" the US in foiling the impending Chinese attack. We won't even consider the fear of economic reprisals being a factor in such negotiations. (England, Japan, and to a lesser extent the US, and Australia have strong economic ties to India.) This would effectly make the "Invasion of the United States" an invasion of India, as the fighting is effectively redirected to China's border.

All this is just to say that an invasion by China of the continental United States is not going to happen.


But, lets go back to my firstpoint and hypothesize that there would not be an escalation into a "global conflict".

It is not possible that an invasion of the United States would be short term if China's goal was anything other than lemming style population control.

Long term military operations between countries with a GDP of $6.449 trillion (China; 2003 est) vs a GDP of $10.99 trillion (US; 2003 est) is guaranteed to have a long lasting impact of both economies. The world economy would not survive 33.9% of its GDP being flushed into a direct war. The collapse of the Global Economy would have an immediate effect on hostilities as once powerful economies were brought to their knees by an economic drought. China's ability to supply its troops over a great distance would fail. The invasion would not be sustainable.

All this is just to say that an invasion by China of the continental United States is not going to happen.


Because China is the only country that is remotely capable of direct confrontation with the United States, it is safe to say an invasion by China of the continental United States is not going to happen.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Super powers do not engage in overt military operations with other superpowers. It is not economically feasible. Both economies would be devastated, sucking the world economy down with them.


Finally someone with an Idea of how the real world works


China is no more gonna invade the USA then we are them. What would be the point? Mutual suicide?

We choose our enimies carefully and so do they. This is not to mention those that seem to fail to grasp ANY logistics of mounting ANY invasion much less a country like ours. A army does not magically appear on your border ready to fight. It takes weeks and months of troop movements and HUGE amounts of supplies. You dont bring troops in cargo holds and even if you did would they stay there for the month or two that it takes to get everything ready? Without food or water? There is NO WAY to hide the amount of troops it would take to invade a country our size.

Not to even mention that we would nuke the hell out of any army massing on any border.

Take the so-called Chinese troops in Mexico. How are they going to form up and not be seen? How are they going to be supplied and not be discovered? Can tanks, jets and APCs be disguised as tourists? This is not WW1 we have eyes in the sky that can read a newspaper how the heck are you gonna hide a million troops? Not to mention a supply train back to china?

Get real



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Math done….to say that NK or any other country including china could invade America is the height of ignorance….forget for a minute that an invasion force would have to make d-day look like a company sized landing exercise to even have a hope of maintaining a beach head. Any invasion of the west coast would require first an invasion of Hawaii so the invasion of the west coast would be made with hostilities underway. This means that the slow moving invasion force would have to cross at least from Hawaii to the west coast under 100% American air control. They wouldn’t even make it close unless we picked the survivors up and brought them here.

Forget for a minute that a classical invasion force would be suicide for the aggressor without probably any result other than littering the ocean floor. Unlike other nations were the population can be largely ignored as a possible threat….we as a nation have as many accidental gun deaths as troop numbers they would most probably be able to send. Not that I would like to see an invasion but I can just see the Chinese trying to deal with the crips, bloods and lapd…..united and gloves off. Forget all of the other force that we as a nation can project. That would be more than enough force to repel any possible invasion force. Not even starting to consider all of the well armed former military and hunters running around on the coast. The standing active duty military is around 1.4M and guard and reserve most probably account for a like number. So that would mean that roughly 7% of current military personnel are even involved with Iraq. Add that and all of the weapons civilian personnel would bring to bear any realistic invasion force would need to be the largest invasion force in history just to not make bay of pigs look like a well executed strike. And that invasion force would have to operate under 100% American air control.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I know this is a little long, but I've often had positive reactions to my geo-strategic insights, so I figured that roughly half of you wouldn't mind.

Everyone has been talking about a war on America as if it must begin immediately on American soil and the invasion must take place by total surprise within hours of war being declared. This is a fallacy in direct contradiction of most historical examples.
A likely invasion of the United States would probably have several of the following traits:
1. It would be a reaction to a threat or percieved threat from America, because war on America is far too costly to persue for no reason. For this reason the war would begin overseas.
2. There would be a slow escalation involving a great deal of diplomacy, especially if China or Russia were the adversary, because NATO must be persuaded to stay out.
3. The strategic positioning of land based aircraft and the defeat of American submarine forces would be vital in order to take the war onto the American continent.
4. The goal would be to damage America's military might and install an American government under the supervision of the UN, because the subjecting America to a foreign government would be a long, costly, and ultimately pointless. It follows that the enemy goal is to destroy a large amount of US Military hardware and capture or kill a large number of US leaders without fighting a protracted war for territorial gains. In short, only the eastern US must be captured, and it need not be totally controlled.


The following is a hypothetical war between China/Russia and America.

Week 1: North Korean submarines are found on missile patrol on the American coast. Korea admits it and demands bi-lateral talks and a Non Agression Pact.

Week 2: The US simultaneously destroys all N.K. missle subs while launching airstrikes from 2 carrier groups and land bases. The attacks destroy key supplies and nuclear sites to prevent immediate retaliation.

Week 3: The US moves in additional forces while North Korea mobilizes for war. The world demands an immediate pull-back of both sides.

Week 4: China offers to act as a separating force- France, Germany, Russia, and South Korea all agree. No fly and no sail zones surround the peninsula. American forces do not pull back but play cat-and-mouse with the Chinese.
Americans only back off in the face of Su-27s, 30s, or J-10s. Several older Chinese aircraft are destroyed. Russia sends Su-27s and 30s with pilots to help China.

Week 5: A chinese sub gets too close to an American carrier and is destroyed. Chinese aircraft sink the carrier. American missile subs approach China and the missile shield is tested. Carriers pull back and landbased aircraft take over. US subs begin to sink Chinese vessels.

Week 6: China's mandate is re-affirmed by the UN, including every member of NATO. America calls the votes of allies "a betrayal". China's government resolves that all-out war in inevitable, and that war on Chinese soil is unacceptable- the fight must go to America.
Chinese military hardware and troops are smuggled into Cuba and the Bahamas in freighters. The Chinese know military movements to ports will be seen, so they intentionally allow "mistakes" which show the Americans that the supplies being sent are primarily outdated equipment for Cuban use and air defenses. The slow buildup of Chinese power in the Carribean will continue for months, underestimated by the Americans.

Week 7: China appeals heavily to the international community that America-specifically George Bush- is out of control and must be restrained diplomatically as soon as possible. It has been 3 weeks since China has shown aggression, or even defended itself to its full capability- small surface ships are intentionally allowed to be sunk to create sympathy.

Week 8: China continues to avoid offensive moves but makes progress in defending against the American attack subs. China, Russia, France, Germany, and many middle eastern nations embargo America, and it is suggested that America could be suspended from the UN security council, which would pave the way for punitive resolutions. Iraq and Kuwait continue to sell oil to America.

Week 9-17: Iranian troops, acting on a secret agreement with China, overrun the small US force remaining in Iraq and sieze southern Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields- but dare not go near the Turkish border in Northern Iraq. China negotiates for profits from oil sales to remain in the hands of Iraq and Kuwait, on the condition that China will buy all of the oil produced.
China launches air raids targeted at fuel supplies in the west pacific region and at oil infrastructure and port facilities in Alaska to limit American oil production. China increases provokation of American air forces in the region to cause greater fuel consumption.
Cuba announces a blockade of the gulf of Mexico with a hand full of aircraft and diesel subs purchased from China. They are not fully able to implement it, but the high demands on US forces ultimately do make it necessary for shipping to re-route away from the gulf whenever possible.

Week 18-26: Combined Chinese and Russian forces invade Alaska and create airbases there to ensure control of the North Pacific. The Chinese launch a massive air raid on nations hosting American forces in the West Pacific, destroying aircraft and ships to keep those forces from entering the fight. The Chinese suffer heavy losses to older aircraft types in the Alaskan campaign and progress is slower than expected due to climate. Nevertheless their victory over the relatively small American force is assured.
Canada and Britain cease their neutrality and begin selling fuel to America in huge quantities. British, American, and Canadian troops rush to defend the Rocky Mountains in the Yukon territory. It is believed that the Chinese will commit additonal troops and attempt a rapid breakthrough to the flatter ground and abundant highways of Saskatchewan and Manitoba to pour into the American mid west. America is confident that the advance will be ill-coordinated and an easy upset America's superior implementation of combined arms and manuever warfare, but the invasion doesn't come.

Week 27-33: The Russian Navy announces an excercize in the North Atlantic. The goal is to test the readiness of their fleet, which has been refitted and readied for action for the last 3 months. America sees this as a direct threat against their East Coast by Russia and perhaps what China has been waiting for. Additional US forces are committed to the North-central region. Air and naval defenses are concentrated in the North Atlantic to deter the Russians.

Week 34-40: The Chinese and Russian forces in Alaska have not entered any cities and are allowing supplies in. Britain encourages the prospect of peace talks, as do most nations. Although upset, even some Americans suspect that this has all been a humiliating misunderstanding. The Pentagon sees this as an indication that a forcible retaking of Alaska can be undertaken without falling into any sort of trap. American forces advance and begin probing the Chinese defense of the Alaskan Range, hoping to liberate Anchorage by force before going into peace talks.

Week 41-50: After almost 11 months of military buildup in the Carribean, Chinese troops who have been hiding in cramped quarters for months emerge and begin exercises and preparations for combat. Chinese aircraft and conventional short range missiles unleash a tremendous assault on the skeleton of a defense which guards Florida. Chinese troops reinforce positions in Alaska and cross the Pacific heading for the southern part of British Columbia, protected by Chinese air cover operating from Alaska. Chinese forces will land, but success is in no way certain. The North Western front is for the men on the ground to decide at this point.
The second prong of the assault will develop further:

Week 51-54: Despite losses in the crossing, Chinese mechanized forces land in Southern Florida and proceed North, destroying oil infrastructure and military forces as they rapidly advance without attempting to secure population centers. They stop and form their lines on favorable terrain (probably rivers) in southern Georgia while they move their air support and supply lines forward.
US Marines make an amphibious landing in their rear with the goal of destroying Chinese air support and supplies. If they are entirely successful, the Chinese will likely be destroyed and the war will be confined to the Northern Front. If they fail, the Southern Front will be decided not in Florida but in the Carolinas. At this point, this front as well is in the hands of the men on the ground.

After Week 54:
The full commitment of Russian Forces to the North Atlantic would be disasterous. Britain stands in the way of this, but consequently can not fully commit to the war in North America.

The choke on American oil can not be ignored indefinately. America's best hope is that the international community will not wish to see this war through to America's destruction, and will begin selling oil to them.
The next best hope is that some NATO countries (including Turkey) will secure by threat or force the neutrality of some Arab nations. Alternately, America may sponsor the formation of an pan-arab superpower by giving withdrawing support for Israel and giving nuclear weapons to a friendly moderate in the region (Egypt or Saudi Arabia).

If the war is at a stalemate for too long, America and allies may attempt to develop oil sources and bases of operation in the South Pacific with the goal of creating a front in Southern China. Although the resources to invade all of China would not be available, a foothold in southern China would provide the protection and support necessary for India and Japan to consider joining the war on the US side.

The nuclear issue could also come up in a long war scenario. The longer a war rages on American soil, the more the balance tips against America. There are several scenarios for nuclear strikes- obviously I can't cover them all:
1. America develops a defense against ICBMs and launches limited strikes which make it impossible for China to continue the war. They offer favorable terms for peace and shoot down the limited Chinese retaliation.
2. America uses a single nuke to break the Chinese lines, exploits the opening and makes major advances in the war, gambling that China will accept peace before they start a cataclysmic nuclear war. This may or may not work, and America would have to be very desperate to try it.
3. Israel uses nukes to complete a conquest of the Middle East and shuts off the oil tap on China. The effect on the war is smaller and more gradual so a nuclear retaliation is unlikely. China must weight a conventional retaliaiton against the fact that it takes away from the main war effort as well as risks further nuclear attacks by Israel.
4. America launches a saturation attack on China and uses EMP devices or other weapons to destroy everything launched in retaliation. The problem is that Russia and even France may feel obligated to ensure that America pays for its actions.

Ultimately, this would be one of two things: a fast and shocking victory for one side or the other which would completely redefine the art of war, or the most intense and bloody war in world history. I can't say who would win- war is all about friction and inertia: how well prepared and how clever is each side? Who makes more mistakes and who does a better job of exploiting them? Who knows how long it could drag out or how quickly one side or the other could gather momentum?
At the end of this one China will probably never want to fight a war again- even if they were the winners.
If America was a normal nation they wouldn't either, but Americans are warlike people- we'd probably just come out wanting to gear up and whip arse on every small nation that snubbed us in our hour of need.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Week 1: North Korean submarines are found on missile patrol on the American coast. Korea admits it and demands bi-lateral talks and a Non Agression Pact.


Something is missing between your week 1 and week 2, let me see if I can help:


Week 2: Korean subs are still on patrol, while the US rejects both and presses for multi-lateral talks. ROE are written and distributed through COMSUBPAC.

Week 3: Korea, under pressure from their masters in China, move into firing position off the U.S. Coast. SSN 763 detects multiple missle launch from the NK sub being shadowed and responds according to their ROE. Minutes later COMSUBPAC issues an alert to all SSN. The missiles change course mid flight as per programming, and head out to sea targetting an empty spot of water in the middle of no where. Situation in the Pacific remains tense.

Week 4: UN begins debates on whether an investigation is warranted.

Week 8: UN calls a vote for an order to begin a formal investigation. China vetos the vote.

Week 12: after weeks of political manuveuring, China allows the vote to pass.

Week 16: The formal investigation is complete but no decision is reached.

Week 17: U.S. Walks out of the UN and moves bull dozers and wrecking balls into postion surrounding the building. For the first time in UN history a vote is proposed and passed in under 2 hours to move UN headquarters someplace else. Site to be determined.

Week 18: Formal protests of all the worlds countries are received by the US. The U.S. severs all ties with any who dared question their decision.

Week 19: Demolition of the UN building is complete.


I think that would put us just about at the point where the rest may actually happen. Carry on with week 2.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
And what if I told you that your scenario for the UN angle seems pretty accurate? lol. Remember this is G-dub we're talking about. He went before the entire world, promised a crusade, and said "you're either with us or against us". Of course he meant neither and he has delivered on neither, but I can certainly see him threatening to knock down the UN building.

Before anyone chops my head off- I'm a conservative- I just happen to see the humor in government. Afterall, we're all confused, ridiculous little creatures and there's not really any one of us who particularly belongs in such a serious position of authority as president.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Based on the policies and outcomes that the Bush Administration has created, is creating and will create out of the PNAC stable of strategies--

WHAT IF the US Administration's whole intent and purpose is to ALLOW a foreign invasion so they can "pick up the pieces, ten cents on the dollar," and in the process, also get rid of a lot of troublesome populations that are not amenable to non-Constitutional governance?

What if--in essence--the PNAC head of the Bush Administration--submerged indeed--works for destroying ALL NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES--
including the USofA??? THAT--

Bush & their Cabal and the Al Queada are essentially on the same SIDE???

Then what?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
And what if I told you that your scenario for the UN angle seems pretty accurate? lol. Remember this is G-dub we're talking about. He went before the entire world, promised a crusade, and said "you're either with us or against us". Of course he meant neither and he has delivered on neither, but I can certainly see him threatening to knock down the UN building.

Before anyone chops my head off- I'm a conservative- I just happen to see the humor in government. Afterall, we're all confused, ridiculous little creatures and there's not really any one of us who particularly belongs in such a serious position of authority as president.


Of course it was feasible. It was extreme series of events based on recent US reaction. Even if threatening to demolish the UN building is a bit silly. :p

But, the US severing all ties with the rest of the world is just about the only way to make your week four feasible. It also segways into week 2 rather nicely.


There are other problems with your list including but not limitted to:

The Chinese build up in Cuba being underestimated. History seems to indicate that a buildup of enemy military forces in Cuba leads to a direct confrontation.

The invasion of Alaska is not a strategically significant. Alaska was never strategically important. In the late 50's and early 60's there were 12 (+/- 4) aircraft defending Alaska airspace.

An Iranian invasion of Iraq ignores pre-existing Iraqi/Iranian tension. It would not just be over running a small US force. It would be invading a sovereign nation, which would have to be addressed by the UN. That would polarize the "Chinese politcal base" in the UN.

And generally, you overlook the fact that the US had planned for a global war with the Soviet Bloc during the cold war. A china/Russia compact is "old hat".

But to repeat what I said in my previous post. Direct military engagement of superpowers is not economically feasible.


@Emily_Cragg

If your goal is to cause a major world economic crisis and the suspension of Constitutional rights in the US, there are easier ways of doing it than direct military engagement between superpowers.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
There will be no invasion of the United States of America.

Three Reasons:

(1) By pride alone -- and to avoid seeing our land held hostage by a foreign power -- we would gladly and promptly nuke the bejesus out of any part of our soil being held so.

(2) We will have tied up nations allied to the invaders with enormous amounts of pressure in the UN and NATO - averting every situation mentioned in previous posts.

and

(3) We simply have more advanced, capable and militarily superior hardware than all nations on earth combined. Even though previous posters assume that military-ready forces would be an outnumbering advantage to the invaders side, please realize that a great percentage of the population in those countries are undereducated and not ready for prime time. Shooting a rifle maybe - flying a plane or commanding a take, not likely.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Don't forget those little things we have floating around in the world's oceans called "Ohio Class Submarines". They have enough firepower to take care of any threat the US encounters, regardless if the US is still there or not, that is the point, IF the actual United States is wiped out they will be there to retaliate



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
well china could attack another superpower if its economy had nothing to lose.

case and point:

wait till the oil starts to get scarce



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
(1) By pride alone -- and to avoid seeing our land held hostage by a foreign power -- we would gladly and promptly nuke the bejesus out of any part of our soil being held so.

I seriously doubt any country would nuke themselves.



Originally posted by enomus
you, my friend, obviously do not live in the south.

Quite the contrary, actually. I lived in the south for about 17 years.


Originally posted by crisko
Umm, FYI: The military does not communicate critical info over commercial comms. Our communications are redundant.

It doesn't matter what kind of communication. E bombs take out anything and everything electronic, period.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   


quote: Originally posted by NextLevel
(1) By pride alone -- and to avoid seeing our land held hostage by a foreign power -- we would gladly and promptly nuke the bejesus out of any part of our soil being held so.



I seriously doubt any country would nuke themselves.


Oh Really?
That's odd - as we've being doing it for roughly the past 60 years. In fact, we've irradiated more soil in our country than I really care to think about.

The fact of the matter is -- it's a strategic decision to be held in reserve and to be honest, I could imagine 10 ways that our wonderful Gubmint could think of to spin it in a positive light. A tactical nuclear strike can be clean, efficient and specifically threatening. If we do it with a 20KT strike that takes out an invading armies command and control post, wouldn't that be worth the repurcussions?

And to be honest, if I were a military commander in this country with nuclear weapons in my arsenal, you'd best damned believe I'd nuke anyone invading this country if I had no other choice. I'd rather struggle to rebuild, decontaminate, or entirely make useless a section of land than have my daughters, sons and countrymen&women live under Islamic, Communist or Facist rule for the rest of my natural life.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
Oh Really?
That's odd - as we've being doing it for roughly the past 60 years. In fact, we've irradiated more soil in our country than I really care to think about.

Nuking a desert with no one in it is one thing. Nuking your own people in their own cities is another. I hope you're never a military commander in any country.


[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by NextLevel
Oh Really?
That's odd - as we've being doing it for roughly the past 60 years. In fact, we've irradiated more soil in our country than I really care to think about.

Nuking a desert with no one in it is one thing. Nuking your own people in their own cities is another. I hope you're never a military commander in any country.


[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]


So, to rehash what you're saying: we can nuke our enemies, except when our enemies are on our soil? Is that what you're saying?

Remember, I said NOTHING about using nuclear weapons on our OWN PEOPLE. Please, before this spirals out of normalcy, know that I didn't in fact say anything remotely similar to what you're saying. However, as you've eluded to, the inevitable fact is that somehow, somewhere, in the resultant casualty count, many thousands of civilians will probably die.

If you had to make a choice in order to divert an enemy stranglehold on your country, wouldn't you? Please expand on what your strategy would utilize. Keep in mind, you are:

(1) Devoid of appropriate troops
(2) Severely lacking supplies and equipment
(3) Facing the most threatening enemy on your soil that you've ever faced

An analogy: a wasp lands on your neighbor. To rid him of the wasp, you smack the wasp with the palm of your hand, killing the wasp. Your neighbor is irked, but thankfully realizes that you have avoided a potentially painful situation. Now, the same wasp lands on you? Please enlighten us with your strategy?



[edit on 15-11-2004 by NextLevel]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
Remember, I said NOTHING about using nuclear weapons on our OWN PEOPLE. Please, before this spirals out of normalcy, know that I didn't in fact say anything remotely similar to what you're saying. However, as you've eluded to, the inevitable fact is that somehow, somewhere, in the resultant casualty count, many thousands of civilians will probably die.

Oh, I see. So you're thinking we could just evacuate all Americans from the occupied areas, then nuke the remaining invaders?
Or maybe you're thinking they'll only invade our deserts?
I'm assuming you know that nuking our own citizens would be a very last resort. That type of action would only be taken after it's very clear that we've lost, and have absolutely no chance of winning our country back. Is that the scenario you're talking about? Because we're not going to rush into nuking our coastline, just to stop invaders. It just wouldn't happen. Of course, with Bush in office, I guess I can't say it won't happen. He's stupid and psychotic enough to do something like that immediately.


[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
.
.
.
Another absolutely delightful thread courtesy of ats. Thanks everyone.

My take - too many people panic about the poodle at their heels and ignore the Doberman going for their throat.

The USA has already been invaded, along with the rest of North America. The takeover is almost complete, politically, socially and legally.

Call it the Continental Corporate Merger - it is designed to entrench corporate power under international law, neutralize democracy and re-establish the feudal system.

*Almost* everything is now legally defined as an economic product or service, and therefor subject to corporate control. The legal details are covered in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), shored up by the World Bank, GATT etc - and sacrosanct under international law.

Civil rights are the only freedoms left that are not defined legally in economic terms, and which cannot be controlled legally by corporate powers - a hindrance soon to be addressed by the coming "US-Mexico-Canada Security Plan."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.worldnetdaily.com...



.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The PTB are ALREADY using NUKES against our own soldiers--

DEPLETED URANIUM is so radioactive that it's poisoning all our own soldiers that handle it!!

www.abidemiracles.com...

"find": depleted uranium. The story's in there at the bottom of the page.

They're not only nuking our own soldiers; they're not only poisoning our circulatory systems with chlorine and our brains with fluoride and aspartame; they developing new diseases all the time.

And you wanna believe this Gummint regime is BENIGN?

Whoa.

Dreamer.

Maybe this thread ought to go into RATS too, eh?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The PTB are ALREADY using NUKES against our own soldiers--

DEPLETED URANIUM is so radioactive that it's poisoning all our own soldiers that handle it!!

www.abidemiracles.com...

"find": depleted uranium. The story's in there at the bottom of the page.

They're not only nuking our own soldiers; they're not only poisoning our circulatory systems with chlorine and our brains with fluoride and aspartame; they developing new diseases all the time.

And you wanna believe this Gummint regime is BENIGN?

Whoa.

Dreamer.

Maybe this thread ought to go into RATS too, eh?


Give me a break! Depleted uranium is in no way, shape or form comparable to "nukes". The depleted uranium used in ammunition is just that, depleted. The radiation level is approximately 40% less than that of regular uranium, and is harmless unless large amounts are inhaled or ingested. Sure, its not good for you, but its hardly on the danger level of nukes, chemical weapons or even a single bullet.
Also, why is this thread still going on? I cant believe that anyone would think that we are vulnerable to invasion. I'm no wacko "Kick butt America, yeah!" super patriot, I'm just realistic. From a geographical and military standpoint, the USA is probably the most well protected country in the world.




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join