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 B52 aircraft challenge China air zone

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Surely you see the hypocrisy in saying that it's ok for China to do it, because they need resources, while condemning the US for allegedly stealing resources. I mean in one breath you talk about how evil the US is, while at the same time coming across as "it's ok for China to do it."




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Each B52 can carry 20 nuclear-armed stealth cruise missiles on rotary launchers with a maximum yield of 150 kilotons (15x more powerful than Hiroshima bomb) each missile or 3 megatons for the combined yield for each plane fully loaded with those missiles.

I forgot the name of those missiles but they were retired last 2012 but who knows. Submarines are still superior options for launching nuclear missiles.
edit on 26-11-2013 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Surely you see the hypocrisy in saying that it's ok for China to do it, because they need resources, while condemning the US for allegedly stealing resources. I mean in one breath you talk about how evil the US is, while at the same time coming across as "it's ok for China to do it."


No, something tells me he won't see the hypocrisy...."It's right off China's coast...." or the one I've seen a lot of, and laugh at: "The US should stay out of the Pacific and leave it to Asia" As if we don't have, literally, thousands and thousands of miles of Pacific shoreline in our country.

Maybe we could just declare Cuba as American turf...it's right off our coast, after all.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





At their request. Control of Japan was turned back over to the Japanese in 1951

I am quite sure you would claim the same for Iraq to then or the fact we have still bases in Japan?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So is it ok for America to be the one dominating the whole world with military threats? by flying off with Nuke Fortress?

Is it ok for America to bomb and bomb Iran or anyone its government doesn't like?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


Uhhhhhhhhhhh . . . in this situation . . . Japan and Taiwan would see China as the Bully . . . and the USA the big brother standing up for them.

However, it's all a Kabuki dance with each side playing the script assigned by the tyrannical, genocidal globalist oligarchy.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

deadcalm
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This is a territorial dispute between Japan and China. But once again, the US can't help stick it's nose somewhere it's not needed or required. Sending bombers to overfly these islands just serves to escalate tensions...this is why the US is disliked so much all over the world.



You know nothing of the dispute or you wouldnt make such a stupid statement. You just see this as an opportunity to say how evil the United States is. So where you aware this was at one point US territory? The area under dispute is the Senkaku Islands they were under Japanese control from 1895 until 1945 in which they were annexed by the United States in 1945. They were used mostly for military operations such as target practice and training for US forces out of Okinawa. Well in 1971 they were returned to Japan and were used for military and fishing. Taiwan even lays claim to these islands thinking the US should have turned them over to them Taiwan was under Japanese control prior to world war 2 and was forced to give it up by the United States basically to give the overthrown government of china a place to stay.

So now as the US being the former owner and giving it to Japan id say that we have a reason to be involved dont you? This is why



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


This is nothing new. All the big powers and some little ones test each other. It was happening all the time when I was in. We used to take pictures of Russian subs that would surface off the coast of Florida all the time when I was in the Navy.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So is it ok for America to be the one dominating the whole world with military threats? by flying off with Nuke Fortress?

Is it ok for America to bomb and bomb Iran or anyone its government doesn't like?


The united States bombed Iran? well thats a new one hadnt heard that before unless you count black hawks crashing to the ground? And trust me stop the drama B52 arent a nuke fortress whatever that is. But i guess that helps your case somehow how the evil United States is just running around threatening the world. Do you want to see what its like for a super power to try to dominate the world just wait your starting to see the first steps now with China. If you dont think all those Asian countries arent glad the US is around your crazy they know what China would do.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Learn some history before you try to school someone on it. It really helps a lot. Japan wants the US there. It's that simple. It's not a military occupation or anything else you want to call it. The simple fact is that the Japanese people want us there.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Now what are you rambling about? What is "Nuke Fortress"? And when did the US bomb Iran? Funny, we didn't like Russia and never bombed them. We haven't bombed a lot of countries we don't like, but you and others keep complaining about what a bully the US is. Until we're needed.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   


So now as the US being the former owner and giving it to Japan id say that we have a reason to be involved dont you? This is why
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So by your logic...say I were to sell a house to someone....would that give me the right to dictate or even be involved in any decisions or disputes involving the house I no longer own? Of course not....no different here. The US no longer has any claim to the islands...not their business.

But more importantly, what was to be gained by the US pulling the provocative move it did by flying two bombers over the islands? Bombers that were designed to carry nuclear weapons I might add. Do you think this will make the Chinese back off? Are they just going to run away and give up the islands? All this did was ratchet up tensions.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hypocrisy is what I have been talking about...so yes, I see it. Let me say this again....I do not agree with ANY nation using the threat of military might to take something that does not belong to them. Diplomacy is always the answer. Are we clear on that? It's not OK for China and it's not OK for the US.

The point I am making, is that the overflight was not helpful in any way. It just serves to further ratchet up tensions in the region. There is nothing to be gained by sending bombers that were originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons to Russia

I was also trying to illustrate how absurd it is for the US to point fingers at any other nation, given your history. The US has no moral high ground to stand on. In many ways you are just as bad as the Chinese...very little separates your countries anymore. Indefinite detention, torture, extra judicial killings of American citizens, the largest per capita percentage of your citizens in prisons, your free speech is under attack constantly....illegal spying on your own citizens, allies and enemies alike.....just like the Chinese you have an upper class that rules the rest of the population and is immune to the laws that they don't hesitate to enforce on the common man.

SEE THE HYPOCRISY???



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   


It's not a military occupation or anything else you want to call it. The simple fact is that the Japanese people want us there.
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Are you quite sure about that? These Japanese have a different take.....




Tens of thousands of protesters formed a chain around a major U.S. air base today in a show of opposition to the American military presence in Japan.


abcnews.go.com...




While more police officers patrol Tokyo's subway and train stations in preparation for U.S. President Barack Obama's two-day trip to Japan this week, people in other parts of the country have already sent the American President a message. On Sunday, thousands of Japanese — with estimates ranging from 6,000 to 21,000 — gathered in the Okinawan city of Nago to demand that U.S. military personnel, who have been continuously stationed on the island since 1945, find a new place to go.

Read more: Japan Protests U.S. Military Bases Ahead of Obama Visit - TIME


content.time.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">content.time.com...< br />


The first quote comes from a visit by Clinton....the second, a visit by Obama. Seems they've wanted you out for a while now....lol.





edit on 27-11-2013 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2013 by deadcalm because: added link

edit on 27-11-2013 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


It's called "Right of Free Passage". If no one flies through the airspace, then by default it becomes Chinese airspace. It's exercising that right. The US had every right to fly whatever aircraft they wanted to through that area, just as Japan does, Russia does, any other country does. China isn't interested in anything but getting those islands, and they'll take them if they have to.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


There's a difference between wanting the bases moved, and wanting the US out. If you bother to study up on it, almost 3/4ths of Japanese both appreciate and want the US to stay. They were protesting some of the bases, like the one on Okinawa, and wanted them moved. In 2011, 82% of people polled had friendly feelings towards the US and US military.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Strategic heavy bombers with potentially 70 tons of bombs mines or cruise missiles on board hardly an appropriate response!.

Why not a couple of surveillance aircraft wouldn’t that say were keeping an eye on you and we want you to know wouldn't that have been more appropriate ?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by brianporter
 


Because a recon plane has a lot more potential to end up like the EP-3 on Hainan, with the crew in custody. A B-52 has much more chance to get away than an RC-135, or other recon aircraft.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   


If you bother to study up on it, almost 3/4ths of Japanese both appreciate and want the US to stay.
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well, I have studied up on it. Do you have any sources for your assertion that 75% of the Japanese people want the US military there? The last poll I was able to find was done in 1996 and then it was 70%....hardly current numbers.

75% of the US Military presence is in Okinawa. The people of Okinawa want the US GONE. The agreement that allows the US to maintain bases in Japan was signed in 1950, although to say that the Japanese wanted this is misleading in the extreme....they had NO CHOICE.

To support this point.....




Associations such as "No Military Bases in Japan," in the country denounce that "there are 135 U.S. bases with about 54,000 soldiers," of which 75 percent are concentrated in Okinawa.

For others, and this is the case of the governor of Yamaguchi, Sakinari Nii, it is unacceptable to transport these settlements to another territory of the country due to the risks, ailments and discomfort that it generates among the population.


Seems the locals don't like out of control US soldiers raping their women with impunity.

english.pravda.ru... 754-Japanese_want_us_bases_gone-0/




In May 2010, a survey of the Okinawan people conducted by Mainichi shimbun and Ryukyu shimpo, found that 71% of Okinawans surveyed thought that the presence of Marines on Okinawa was not necessary.


SOURCE: Wikipedia




Many of the bases, such as Yokota Air Base, Naval Air Facility Atsugi and Kadena Air Base, are located in the vicinity of residential districts, and local citizens have complained about excessive aircraft noise as well as various crimes perpetrated against local civilians.[18][19][20]


SOURCE: Wikipedia




From 1952 to 2004, there were approximately 200,000 accidents and crimes involving U.S. troops, in which 1,076 Japanese civilians died.


SOURCE: Wikipedia




U.S. personnel have partial extraterritorial right, so in most cases suspects were not arrested by Japanese authorities.[21]


SOURCE: Wikipedia

And just for good measure, let's see what the US troops stationed in Japan get up to when not on duty.....




In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl by two U.S. Marines and one U.S. sailor led to demands for the removal of all U.S. military bases in Japan. Other controversial incidents include helicopter crashes, the Girard incident, the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident, the death of Kinjo family and the death of Yuki Uema. In February 2008, a 38-year-old U.S. Marine based on Okinawa was arrested in connection with the reported rape of a 14-year-old Okinawan girl.[25]


SOURCE: Wikipedia

WOW....given all this I can see why they would want the US there to "protect" them.

I suspect that if you asked any Japanese person that has to live near one of these bases....they would want them gone. Not just moved somewhere else...but gone.

I do want to thank you though for your thought provolking questions and statements.




posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


If you're going to make a valid argument, why not use credible resources to support your claim instead of lazily googling what you're trying to find. Use some media references that give actual reports of the numbers, or actually find the polling results yourself.

Interestingly enough, William Chafe has printed two primary source books since 1996 with polling dates from 2005 and 2009, the first being 74% and the later being 83% approval.

I'm more prone to believe statistics by someone who works in the field of historical research than a website that anyone can edit or a website that anyone could run.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join