'China Will Nuke US'
Moderate Mammal
More good news for you kids. Don't worry though as Jorge Bush is
working hard at selling American companies to China.
I'm sure though after were nuked Bush and Blair will make sure no one
says anything bad about the Chinese after we surrender to Walmart
CEO's.
--
Keith
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
to a senior Chinese military official.
“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition
on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to
respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the
People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence
University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists
organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's
definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.
“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
determined to respond,” Mr Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare
ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of
course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of
cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Mr Zhu is a
self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could
strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear
weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior
Chinese official in nearly a decade.
Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an
authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the
threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”.
China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear
weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the
first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such
weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.
Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999
that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a
nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.
“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,”
Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to
have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.
The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.
Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five
years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they
did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he
anticipating war between China and the US.
But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a
conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the
only way to stop a war.
His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the
PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last
month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about
China's military build-up.
Additional reporting by Edward Alden in Washington
-------------------------------------
Fed up with illegal immigration?
_____
http://www.rescuewithoutborders.org/index.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/listarticles.cgi?117
http://www.saveourstate.org
http://idexer.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frostyA.htm
http://www.americanpatrol.com/LINKS/LINKS.html
http://www.vdare.com/links.htm
http://www.stoptheinvasion.com/links/
http://fairus.org/
http://numbersusa.com/index
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> More good news for you kids. Don't worry though as Jorge Bush is
> working hard at selling American companies to China.
Just China? ISTM that he and his buddies are selling us out all over the
world.
> I'm sure though after were nuked Bush and Blair will make sure no one
> says anything bad about the Chinese after we surrender to Walmart
> CEO's.
From what I can tell, we are now engaged in the ascendency of corporations
over government. What started out as "privatization" under Reagan is now
progressing as a massive shift of wealth (from the military to the
service-complex, to bastardize Eisenhower's meme), and will likely end
with a ceding of sovereignty.
And the Republican Sheeple are cheering it on.
> --
> Keith
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
> to a senior Chinese military official.
> ?If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition
> on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to
> respond with nuclear weapons,? Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the
> People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
> Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence
> University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists
> organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's
> definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.
> ?If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
> determined to respond,? Mr Zhu said. ?We Chinese will prepare
> ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of
> course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of
> cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.? Mr Zhu is a
> self-acknowledged ?hawk? who has warned previously that China could
> strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear
> weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior
> Chinese official in nearly a decade.
> Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an
> authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the
> threat ?is a new addition to China's public discourse?.
> China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear
> weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the
> first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such
> weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.
> Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999
> that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a
> nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.
> ?In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,?
> -------------------------------------
> _____
--
Words are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup.
They slither while they pass. They slip away across the universe.
--John Lennon
Jay C
>
>
>>China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
>>attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
>>to a senior Chinese military official.
>
This is assinine. If we were to go to war with the Chinese over Taiwan,
the Chinese will have their asses handed to them. For that reason, the
Chinese know that they can not attack Taiwan. The Chinese military,
while large, is still basically just a third world military, no match
for US forces.
Robert Sturgeon
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Moderate Mammal <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
>> More good news for you kids. Don't worry though as Jorge Bush is
>> working hard at selling American companies to China.
>
>Just China? ISTM that he and his buddies are selling us out all over the
>world.
>
>> I'm sure though after were nuked Bush and Blair will make sure no one
>> says anything bad about the Chinese after we surrender to Walmart
>> CEO's.
>
>From what I can tell, we are now engaged in the ascendency of corporations
>over government.
Well, I certainly hope so.
> What started out as "privatization" under Reagan is now
>progressing as a massive shift of wealth (from the military to the
>service-complex, to bastardize Eisenhower's meme), and will likely end
>with a ceding of sovereignty.
No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
good or service, and I can refuse to buy. Therefore I get
better deals from corporations than from the government,
which doesn't have to get my agreement for them to take my
money.
>And the Republican Sheeple are cheering it on.
I'm no longer a Republican, but it seems like a Good Thing
to me. Power to the People (in the marketplace)!
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Vince Brannigan
>
> No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
> me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
> good or service, and I can refuse to buy. Therefore I get
> better deals from corporations than from the government,
> which doesn't have to get my agreement for them to take my
> money.
Is that because you prefer not to call it a tax? when you buy gas how
do you differentiate the tax from the price? ARE sales taxes not taxes
since you don't have to pay them unless you buy something ?
Vince
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
Ummm....Hey Genius: That is why they are threatening to use nukes.
HTH.
And BTW, if you ever get the hankering to become a military strategist,
just take a cold shower instead.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > What started out as "privatization" under Reagan is now
> >progressing as a massive shift of wealth (from the military to the
> >service-complex, to bastardize Eisenhower's meme), and will likely end
> >with a ceding of sovereignty.
> No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
> me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
> good or service, and I can refuse to buy.
You poor, ignorant fool. You buy services from corporations every day,
and you pay for them on April 15.
Do you really think that you can choose to NOT give your money to
Halliburton?
> >And the Republican Sheeple are cheering it on.
> I'm no longer a Republican, but it seems like a Good Thing
> to me. Power to the People (in the marketplace)!
You poor, ignorant fool.
IsaacKuo
That reminds me of the bizarre idiology behind the "Freedom
Ship". The basic business concept is that the proper sort of
wealthy educated free market loving libertarians will flock
to Freedom Ship because they won't have to pay any taxes.
Living there, they can flourish in a boundless economy
unfettered by any government taxes.
Nevermind that no one is allowed to actually BUY their own
property on Freedom Ship. You can only rent. What's
the difference between paying rent to the only land owner
and paying taxes?
Isaac Kuo
S.S.I.N.
"Jay C"> This is assinine. If we were to go to war with the Chinese over
Taiwan,
> the Chinese will have their asses handed to them. For that reason, the
> Chinese know that they can not attack Taiwan. The Chinese military, while
> large, is still basically just a third world military, no match for US
> forces.
let me explain something to you about china.
At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
or picture it this way.
camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
forks !
china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over run.
Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world countries
in banning landmines?
after WW2 the soviets were thinking of invading china.
so china sent them a message simply stating "for every soldier you send we
will send 100 "
needless to say the soviets didn't even step foot over the line.
the only things saving the usa is that china doesn't have enough
boats/planes to send their troops over seas.
and that the civilian population of the usa is well armed (but the civilians
are being disarmed, fast !)
If the usa tried to fight china over in Asia, the usa ground troops would
have their asses handed to them.
The usa rapid firepower scares the enemy not to attack as they reload. like
in Iraq. one mini gun would turn a truck into confetti in 2-5 seconds. then
be empty. but scaring the Iraq soldiers into retreat. Chinese will attack
under any conditions. or be killed by their own forces.
the original message tells of their first nuclear test.
it doesn't tell of how they would set of a nuke and have 200,000 troops rush
to ground zero. slowly working on ways to raise troop survival.
if nukes are used you can be dam sure the Chinese will stay tucked in their
fox holes to kill usa troops wiping dirt from their eyes after the blast.
You can paint a bag of garbage pink, put Mickey mouse it and make it look
all pretty and shit. But in the end it's still just a bag of garbage.
perhaps this is why women need so much make-up.
S.S.I.N.
IsaacKuo
>If the usa tried to fight china over in Asia, the usa
>ground troops would have their asses handed to them.
I really can't see a circumstance under which US ground
troops would be fighting the PLA, but if it happened in
the near future the PLA would have serious difficulty.
The Chinese military model was essentially similar to
the Soviet model of quantity over quality--up until
1991. In 1991, one of the largest armies in the Soviet
mold utterly collapsed in the face of superior technology,
suffering tremendous losses while inflicting minimal
casualties in return.
The Russian and Chinese militaries looked on the 1992
Gulf War in horror, shocked in the realization of how
desperately they needed to modernize their forces in
order to be remotely militarily competetive. Quantity
over quality simply wouldn't work.
A little more than a decade later, the PLA has made
great strides in high tech modernization, but it still
has far to go. At the same time, the US military has
not stayed still--perfecting night fighting technology
and expanding sophisticated high tech fighting technology
and tactics into traditionally difficult MOUT.
The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq cut
both ways. On the one hand, the drain on resources has
caused drastic cutbacks in US military technological
development. On the other hand, the experience has
honed advanced MOUT tactics and skills in a way no
amount of simulated training could have. In the near
term, this makes the US ground forces a much tougher,
more formidable adversary. In the medium term, the
technological edge the US military forces currently
enjoy may suffer (although the gap may remain large
for quite some time).
In a straight fight between US and PLA forces in
the near future, the PLA is at quite a disadvantage.
But that point is rather moot, I think. In war, when
is there ever such a thing as a straight fight? The
current Iraq war shows that there's more than one way
to fight. Regardless of how disadvantaged the PLA might
be on the battlefield, the US can't even begin to THINK
about invading mainland China. It's simply inconceivable
that any sort of ultimate objective could be acheived
by doing so.
Indeed, Chinese strategists looking at the current
Iraq war are probably more concerned about the tactics
of the other side. Pro-independence Taiwanese are
surely looking at the tactics of the insurgents in case
of their feared worst case scenario--PLA invasion of
Taiwan. While Chinese military hawks possibly don't
care about the possibility of a robust insurgency
in Taiwan, more progress-minded Chinese leaders would
prefer to have a peaceful transition (ala Hong Kong).
Isaac Kuo
Jay C
comes to China. Hell, we even have contingency plans for a war with
Canada! However, since war with China is rather more likely we have
contingencies in place that are planned down to the most minute
details.Every single square meter of China has been mapped, and we have
the coordinates of every possible target inside of the PRC. With our B-1
and B-2 bombers, smart bombs, and cruise missles the Chinese do not
stand a chance against us. Not a single truck or tank could move there
without our sattelites detecting it. The only possible threat the
Chinese pose is with their ICBMs; however, it is unlikely that they even
possess more than a dozen capable of reaching the US, and those can only
reach targets in Alaska, Hawaii, and along the West Coast. So at most we
face the possiblity of having a dozen cities annihlated, while we have
the capability to destroy EVERY major city in China. For that reason
alone the Chinese would never confront the United States militarily.
The 300 million man Chinese ground army is irrelevent, as we would not
have to get into a ground war in order to defeat the Chinese. However,
were the US military to face the Chinese in a ground war, I have no
doubt that our troops would be able to perform just as effectively as
they have in the war on terror. A backwards peasant army is no match for
highly trained troops equipped with the best fighting equipment of any
military in the world. Right now our troops are fighting on two fronts,
and they have the ability to fight on at least one more front (either
North Korea or China, or most likely both). A Chinese peasant with an
SKS would be no match for a US Marine who has cutting edge technology
right at his fingertips. As I said before, if the Chinese choose to
fight the United States they will have their asses handed to them by the
best fighting men and women in the world.
leadfoot
> let me explain something to you about china.
> At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
> what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
> that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>
> or picture it this way.
> camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
> forks !
> china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
> eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over
> run.
> Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
> countries in banning landmines?
How are they getting to Camp David? Swimming?
Jay C
LOL !!!! Other than the (questionable) threat the Chinese may pose to
Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast with their ICBMS, the Chinese
military is no match for ours. That is why there will be no war with
China. So for the foreseeable future Taiwan will still be free to take
our jobs and factories away.
Jack Linthicum
The U.S. is scared so shitfaced by some guys carrying 10 pounds of RDX
and the Chinese have full-range ICBMS that can hit anyplace in the U.S.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Wordfroms/China1/China1-7.shtml
Tiny Human Ferret
No, they capture the world's largest and most productive shipbuilding
facility, in South Korea. A year later, they have the world's largest
fleet and the world's largest army halfway across the Pacific.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
Jim E
"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:bNidnce0dsy...@comcast.com...
The difference is that you can negotiate with a business.
With government it's pay or jail.
Gas tax is an example of the unavailability
of the greedy grab of government overhead.
Jim E
Jay C
> leadfoot wrote:
>
>>> let me explain something to you about china.
>>> At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
>>> what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
>>> that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>>>
>>> or picture it this way.
>>> camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only
>>> pitch forks !
>>> china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David
>>> would eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and
>>> be over run.
>>> Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
>>> countries in banning landmines?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How are they getting to Camp David? Swimming?
>
>
> No, they capture the world's largest and most productive shipbuilding
> facility, in South Korea. A year later, they have the world's largest
> fleet and the world's largest army halfway across the Pacific.
That's the most far-fetched scenario I've ever heard! Besides, assuming
they could capture the shipbuilding facility without damaging it, how
many ships could they possibly produce in just one year? Or even 10
years? Even if the Chinese were to send ships to attack either Taiwan or
the US, we would send every single one of them to the bottom of the
ocean. So don't quit your day job Mr. Tiny Human Ferret, you're not
going to be the next Tom Clancy with ideas like this one.
Moderate Mammal
>
>"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>news:bNidnce0dsy...@comcast.com...
>> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
>>> me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
>>> good or service, and I can refuse to buy. Therefore I get
>>> better deals from corporations than from the government,
>>> which doesn't have to get my agreement for them to take my
>>> money.
>>
>> Is that because you prefer not to call it a tax? when you buy gas how do
>> you differentiate the tax from the price? ARE sales taxes not taxes since
>> you don't have to pay them unless you buy something ?
>>
>
>The difference is that you can negotiate with a business.
Except when they send all the manufacturing jobs to China. Or
bulldoze your house to build condos or a strip mall.
--
Keith
>With government it's pay or jail.
>Gas tax is an example of the unavailability
>of the greedy grab of government overhead.
>
>
> Jim E
>
-------------------------------------
Robert Sturgeon
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Robert Sturgeon <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>> > What started out as "privatization" under Reagan is now
>> >progressing as a massive shift of wealth (from the military to the
>> >service-complex, to bastardize Eisenhower's meme), and will likely end
>> >with a ceding of sovereignty.
>
>> No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
>> me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
>> good or service, and I can refuse to buy.
>
>You poor, ignorant fool. You buy services from corporations every day,
>and you pay for them on April 15.
I pay for those services when (or shortly after) I buy them.
4/15 has nothing to do with it.
>Do you really think that you can choose to NOT give your money to
>Halliburton?
I am certain I have never given any money to Haliburton.
The government has, just as it has given money to public
school teachers, bus drivers, GIs, etc., after taking it
from me (and from you). But I haven't given any money to
any of the above.
>> >And the Republican Sheeple are cheering it on.
>
>> I'm no longer a Republican, but it seems like a Good Thing
>> to me. Power to the People (in the marketplace)!
>
>You poor, ignorant fool.
tsk, tsk...
PaPaPeng
>
>LOL !!!! Other than the (questionable) threat the Chinese may pose to
>Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast with their ICBMS, the Chinese
>military is no match for ours. That is why there will be no war with
>China. So for the foreseeable future Taiwan will still be free to take
>our jobs and factories away.
Hey Jay,
Your local recruiting office wants you to sign up pronto. You can
singlehandedly take out Saddam's leftovers, get the boys and gals
home, then put China in its place for desserts.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> However, since war with China is rather more likely we have
> contingencies in place that are planned down to the most minute
> details.
Yep. Same for Iraq, eh?
Moron.
Gunner
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
>“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition
>on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to
>respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the
>People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
If the Chinese use tactical nukes during a battle over Taiwan..US
birds will fly and Bejing will become a glass ashtray.
Gunner
"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown
Gunner
>china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
>eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over run.
>Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world countries
>in banning landmines?
The land bridge between China and the US is where again?
The only way the Chinese could invade the US would be by slow, fat,
dumb and very very sinkable boats.
Any idea of how they are going to get their 3 Gazillion military aged
men someplace they CAN fight the US?
I and the Pentagon will be waiting for your response.
Gunner
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>leadfoot wrote:
>>>let me explain something to you about china.
>>>At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
>>>what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
>>>that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>>>
>>>or picture it this way.
>>>camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
>>>forks !
>>>china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
>>>eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over
>>>run.
>>>Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
>>>countries in banning landmines?
>>
>>
>>
>> How are they getting to Camp David? Swimming?
>
>No, they capture the world's largest and most productive shipbuilding
>facility, in South Korea. A year later, they have the world's largest
>fleet and the world's largest army halfway across the Pacific.
This in Navy Language..is called a Turkey Shoot.
Perhaps the marine maps will call the resulting steel reefs The China
Shoals
S.S.I.N.
"Jay C"
we even have contingency plans for a war with
> Canada!
war with Canada?
hell were waiting for you guys to come up here and kill our government.
I wouldn't doubt our military forces shaking hand at the border and joining
forces.
what the hell is taking you guys so dam long?
S.S.I.N.
"Winston Smith"
> Heck the Chinese don't even have WMDs like Saddam did. I give them
> two, three days. A week max before they are extinct.
>
> --
> W§ mostly in m.s -
do you not know that china still believes in chemical and biological
warfare?
S.S.I.N.
"Gunner" >
> The land bridge between China and the US is where again?
hhhhmmm.
I think it's called the immigration office !
S.S.I.N.
"Jay C"
The only possible threat the
> Chinese pose is with their ICBMs; however, it is unlikely that they even
> possess more than a dozen capable of reaching the US, and those can only
> reach targets in Alaska, Hawaii, and along the West Coast. So at most we
> face the possiblity of having a dozen cities annihlated, while we have the
> capability to destroy EVERY major city in China. For that reason alone the
> Chinese would never confront the United States militarily.
if they can launch satellites into space
they can put a nuke on it. all they have to do is tell it when and where in
the world to fall !
you are a bit short sighted aren't you?
Brian Allardice
>
>"Jay C"
>we even have contingency plans for a war with
>> Canada!
>
>war with Canada?
>hell were waiting for you guys to come up here and kill our government.
>I wouldn't doubt our military forces shaking hand at the border and joining
>forces.
Apart from the fact that inasmuch as they already own us it would be
quite silly, I am half-way tempted to agree with you, given the way
that dipshit Hillier has been chanelling Bush.
That idiot should be taken out and shot.
Cheers,
dba
Kitty
"Brian Allardice" <d...@extraneous.uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:jprhd1tvvbqoecago...@4ax.com...
ALL civil servants and Fed employees should be SHOT and now------all are
traitors and scam artists....the corruption knows no end.........USA and all
countries are so corrupt there is no turning back now.........
Kitty
The CO
> if they can launch satellites into space
> they can put a nuke on it. all they have to do is tell it when and where in
> the world to fall !
Oh really. IF you think it's that simple you should try it sometime.
I'll stand on the spot where you reckon it will land.
> you are a bit short sighted aren't you?
Were you looking in a mirror when you said that?
--
The CO
Jim E
"Moderate Mammal" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:nangd1hvv4mu9ujhm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:00:53 -0700, "Jim E" <YD64...@SEA.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vince Brannigan" <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>news:bNidnce0dsy...@comcast.com...
>>> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No corporation ever tried to collect any kind of tax from
>>>> me. They always try to get my money in exchange for some
>>>> good or service, and I can refuse to buy. Therefore I get
>>>> better deals from corporations than from the government,
>>>> which doesn't have to get my agreement for them to take my
>>>> money.
>>>
>>> Is that because you prefer not to call it a tax? when you buy gas how
>>> do
>>> you differentiate the tax from the price? ARE sales taxes not taxes
>>> since
>>> you don't have to pay them unless you buy something ?
>>>
>>
>>The difference is that you can negotiate with a business.
>
> Except when they send all the manufacturing jobs to China. Or
> bulldoze your house to build condos or a strip mall.
The first is free enterprise.
The second can only be done by the government.
Jim E
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Gunner" >
>
>>The land bridge between China and the US is where again?
>
>
>
>
> hhhhmmm.
> I think it's called the immigration office !
No, they just all get forged papers from Beijing, that say they were
born in Hong Kong. They then can travel to Canada, no problem. From
Canada, they take the tour busses to Seattle. From Seattle, they go
anywhere.
Just imagine! Millions and millions of Chinese military, arriving day
after day on tour busses! And it can never be stopped! You know why? The
Tour Bus Manufacturing Association will bribe Congress because they're
making so many tour busses to carry all of the Chinese military!
USA is doomed by the nature of Capitalism.
Jay C
> S.S.I.N. wrote:
>
>> "Gunner" >
>>
>>> The land bridge between China and the US is where again?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> hhhhmmm.
>> I think it's called the immigration office !
>
>
> No, they just all get forged papers from Beijing, that say they were
> born in Hong Kong. They then can travel to Canada, no problem. From
> Canada, they take the tour busses to Seattle. From Seattle, they go
> anywhere.
>
> Just imagine! Millions and millions of Chinese military, arriving day
> after day on tour busses! And it can never be stopped! You know why? The
> Tour Bus Manufacturing Association will bribe Congress because they're
> making so many tour busses to carry all of the Chinese military!
>
> USA is doomed by the nature of Capitalism.
Kook alert ...
Juan
Gummer and Hardman/Tiny Silly Ferret are both a couple of low-IQ
fuckups. Let them have their little fantasies and talk among
themselves. It's kind of like putting the children in a sandbox while
the rest of us adults worry about more pressing matters.
Tiny Human Ferret
Idiot alert!
Perhaps you should go get your Irony Detector repaired.
Gunner
The last time I heard a comment like the above, was amounst the
members of a group of retarded young adults, and they were talking
about forming their own club as they didnt have to deal with normal
folks correcting them and taking all the fun out of being retarded.
Thanks Juan. Ive forwarded your name to the Bakersfield Assoc for
Retarded Citizens as a candidate/client for one of their programs.
Tango
His normal amount of incoherent babblings.
--
Ragheads - piles of shit with the toilet paper still stuck to it.
Illegal aliens - just as worthless as ragheads.
pomp...@hotmail.com
warp. I have no doubt there are cukoos like him over there; the US has
its own share of Dr. Strangelove wannabes. Anyways, China has
possession of a LOT of promisory notes from the US treasury. If they
nuke the US all that paper goes to hell, not even good for wiping.
There are a lot of Taiwanese investors who own plants in the mainland.
(Of course these could be nationalized and sold for a song to local
Chinese investors.) These are facts. I think that neither side wants
matters to escalate. If anything, the Chinese might apply some
economic pressure but I fail to see what they would gain that would be
an improvement over the status quo; however, the US is its largest
market.
Moderate Mammal wrote:
> More good news for you kids. Don't worry though as Jorge Bush is
> working hard at selling American companies to China.
>
> I'm sure though after were nuked Bush and Blair will make sure no one
> says anything bad about the Chinese after we surrender to Walmart
> CEO's.
>
> --
> Keith
>
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
>
> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
> to a senior Chinese military official.
>
> "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition
> on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to
> respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the
> People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
>
> Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence
> University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists
> organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's
> definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.
>
> "If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
> determined to respond," Mr Zhu said. "We Chinese will prepare
> ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of
> course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of
> cities will be destroyed by the Chinese." Mr Zhu is a
> self-acknowledged "hawk" who has warned previously that China could
> strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear
> weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior
> Chinese official in nearly a decade.
>
> Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an
> authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the
> threat "is a new addition to China's public discourse".
>
> China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear
> weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the
> first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such
> weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.
>
> Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999
> that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a
> nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.
>
> "In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,"
> Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to
> have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.
>
> The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.
>
> Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five
> years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they
> did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he
> anticipating war between China and the US.
>
> But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a
> conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the
> only way to stop a war.
>
> His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the
> PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last
> month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about
> China's military build-up.
>
> Additional reporting by Edward Alden in Washington
Lawrence Glickman
<bo...@buttterfly.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:26:06 -0700, "leadfoot" <nos...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>>> let me explain something to you about china.
>>> At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
>>> what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
>>> that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>>>
>>> or picture it this way.
>>> camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
>>> forks !
>>> china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
>>> eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over
>>> run.
>>> Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
>>> countries in banning landmines?
>>
>>
>>How are they getting to Camp David? Swimming?
>
>First scenario
>By ship to Canada, Central and/or South America and then across
>thousands of miles of US land borders. Taking those countries should
>not be an impossible problem. They only need a secure base of
>operations to receive shipping and a transportation corridor to the US
>border. Are we going to defend the shoreline of two continents?
>That's what, 20 or 30 miles of beach? We have trouble with one land
>border where they mostly don't cross by force.
>
>Second scenario
>Tenderize our military with nukes. That also takes out the cities
>where factories and new recruits are to be found. Navel blockade of
>our shipping. Fighting capacity is now down to what survived with no
>additions. Then an aerial landing in a sparsely populated state.
>Spread out from their.
>
>Bravado is stupid.
Capitulation and appeasement are worse.
We can -easily- sink their entire Navy at sea, except for perhaps
their submarines, and I wouldn't be they would be safe from attack
either.
We can shoot their troop transports out of the air, -easily-.
There isn't any way China can get to the CONUS except by proxy, with
their nuclear missiles, and if they want to play that game, which is
the only one they have any chance of competing in, they lose. Our
nuclear subs and ICBMs can turn China into a glowing ember, in under 1
hour.
Lg
The CO
> To say the same thing with emphasis, their army is bigger than our
> entire population.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, it's in China. Which makes it
virtually useless except against defending their homeland from
a physical invasion.
Two words. 'Force Projection' China can't do that away from their
own land mass. They simply don't have the capability at present.
So this massive army won't do one single thing to prevent them being
nuked into the stone age. An army is useful against overseas nations
only if you can get it there - intact - and then unleash it on the enemy.
What chance do you suppose the Chinese have of getting a significant
percentage of their army, with all it's logistics and weapons support,
intact enough to be effective, to North America. Swim? Giant troop
carrying submarines? Build a bridge?
What is the US military doing while this is on? At a guess, blowing the
bejesus out of everything with a red star on it.
> Take away our old, young, sick, and disabled,
> then mobilize what's left of the entire population and they have us
> out maned by a factor around two. That leaves no one to produce or
> deliver supplies/materials - an army with no supply line.
Whereas they have no supply line nor even the logistics to get the army
to North America in the first place. In any conflict China starts with
nukes, it would be neither necessary nor desirable to occupy China to
win. Simple massive destruction will do just fine.
--
The CO
The CO
> First scenario
> By ship to Canada, Central and/or South America and then across
> thousands of miles of US land borders.
Oh? So you think that they won't be seriously interdicted whilst
trying? This presupposes they have the means to ship an effective
army to North America - and get enough of it there to be effective -
which in I consider highly unlikely. What is the US and the rest of
the free worlds military doing while this is going on. I'm sure the
Canadian Defence Force might have some objection.
> Taking those countries should not be an impossible problem.
For China it would be. You have no idea.
> They only need a secure base of operations to receive shipping
Eh? Do you *seriously* believe their shipping would be allowed to
actually *get there*? One Seawolf is worth a fleet of U-boats.
Not to mention CBG's and their strike forces, not to mention land
based anti ship assets. Jeezus. If there's ever a war, I want you
advising the enemy.
> and a transportation corridor to the US border.
You've got the cart before the horse. Actually you've got the road
before the the horse, cart or driver even gets to the road. You keep
glossing over the logistics of getting their human sea army over there.
That would be non trivial for the US to do, it would be impossible for
the Chinese against serious air and naval interdiction. How are they
going to defend their convoys? Send a CBG along - wait - they don't
have any - darn...
> Are we going to defend the shoreline of two continents?
You don't need to defend the entire shoreline - you destroy the
transports enroute. Are you seriously overlooking this?
> That's what, 20 or 30 miles of beach? We have trouble with one land
> border where they mostly don't cross by force.
Oh please...
You are comparing an apple with a wheelbarrow.
> Second scenario
> Tenderize our military with nukes.
Oh really? Gee, I wonder what their response might be?
> That also takes out the cities
> where factories and new recruits are to be found.
Oh? Considering the Chinese missiles can only reach the west coast of
the US on a good day with a following wind and neither the accuracy or
reliablity of their missiles nor their warheads is anywhere near as good
as the US stuff, I guess they might take out Hawaii, Seattle, maybe
LA and SF. That would just about be it for their nuclear capacity.
Any Chinese boomer (which I think is about 2 at the moment) unlucky
enough to be in a home port will get zapped along with said home port,
any unlucky enough to be at sea will get a lot of attention from a
fast attack boat or 6 and be shiny wreckage on the bottom 5 minutes
later.
At this point the mostly untouched nuclear assets of the US glaze most
of China and anything bigger than a rowboat that can float and has
a red star painted on it.
> Navel blockade of our shipping.
Bwahahahahahahahhahahah
With what? Their infamous Sunburn missile carrying Sovremmenny DDGs?
All *TWO* of them? China does not *have* a blue water navy worthy of
the name and couldn't protect it's own convoys, much less interdict
anyone elses. You rabbit on about their army, but what they *need* in
this scenario is a navy with effective air power and land based air
power with global reach. They have neither. They couldn't take on and
lick the Royal Navy which is far smaller than the USN.
> Fighting capacity is now down to what survived with no
> additions.
Yeah. On the Chinese side.
> Then an aerial landing in a sparsely populated state.
With what?
> Spread out from their.
Logistics? Weapons? Transport?
> Bravado is stupid.
Apparently not as stupid as you. Do the world a favour, get a job
in the planning division of the Chinese military.
But, realistically, they *aren't* stupid and wouldn't have you.
Nor any of your whacko concepts about how to invade North America...
--
The CO
The CO
> Capitulation and appeasement are worse.
Quite.
> We can -easily- sink their entire Navy at sea,
Or nuke it along with their port complexes.
> except for perhaps their submarines,
Their diesel boats are better than their SSNs, but all
are based on obsolete Russian designs and are not going
to last or be effective against Advanced LA Class or Seawolf
Class Fast Attack boats. Their own FA boats would have zero
chance of chasing down an Ohio class SSBN.
> and I wouldn't be they would be safe from attack
> either.
And you'd be dead right.
> We can shoot their troop transports out of the air, -easily-.
If they had any with the range to get to the US and drop any respectable
number of troops. They certainly can't provide an escort. Turkey shoot.
> There isn't any way China can get to the CONUS except by proxy, with
> their nuclear missiles, and if they want to play that game, which is
> the only one they have any chance of competing in, they lose.
Yes, because they have neither sufficient missiles and warheads to hit
every necessary US target, nor the range to reach anything beyond the
west coast at present.
> Our nuclear subs and ICBMs can turn China into a glowing ember, in under 1
> hour.
Doubtless. At the moment they have no means to destroy the US, just
hurt it a little. This is not true of the US. If in time China is able
to match the US capacity and performance with their nuclear deterrent,
then we are back to the old MAD scenario.
In neither case would an exchange leave enough of China to be worth
living in.
Fortunately the Chinese aren't stupid, despite occasional mandatory
Communist rhetoric, mostly for domestic consumption, they neither
intend anything of the kind nor believe they could do so and survive.
--
The CO
Lawrence Glickman
wrote:
Yes, all true, and don't forget, once they did land on US shores, IF
they even could, they would face 280 million armed Americans, most of
whom would be biting at the bit to take home a "Chinese Souvenier" to
hang over the fireplace mantle.
I know I would want one ;-)
Lg
misc.survivalism
Gunner
wrote:
>
>> Bravado is stupid.
>
>Apparently not as stupid as you. Do the world a favour, get a job
>in the planning division of the Chinese military.
>But, realistically, they *aren't* stupid and wouldn't have you.
>Nor any of your whacko concepts about how to invade North America...
>
>--
>The CO
Wasnt that the sceanario from Red Dawn?
Gary
Jay C 写道：
> You better believe that the US already has a war plan in place when it
> comes to China. Hell, we even have contingency plans for a war with
> Canada! However, since war with China is rather more likely we have
> contingencies in place that are planned down to the most minute
> details.Every single square meter of China has been mapped, and we have
> the coordinates of every possible target inside of the PRC. With our B-1
> and B-2 bombers, smart bombs, and cruise missles the Chinese do not
> stand a chance against us. Not a single truck or tank could move there
> without our sattelites detecting it. The only possible threat the
> Chinese pose is with their ICBMs; however, it is unlikely that they even
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> possess more than a dozen capable of reaching the US, and those can only
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Naive! Who tells you this conclusion?
> reach targets in Alaska, Hawaii, and along the West Coast. So at most we
> face the possiblity of having a dozen cities annihlated, while we have
> the capability to destroy EVERY major city in China. For that reason
> alone the Chinese would never confront the United States militarily.
>
> The 300 million man Chinese ground army is irrelevent, as we would not
> have to get into a ground war in order to defeat the Chinese. However,
> were the US military to face the Chinese in a ground war, I have no
> doubt that our troops would be able to perform just as effectively as
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
40 years again, when chinese troops have not enough food, they killed
397000 usa army and 988400 south korea army
> they have in the war on terror. A backwards peasant army is no match for
> highly trained troops equipped with the best fighting equipment of any
> military in the world. Right now our troops are fighting on two fronts,
> and they have the ability to fight on at least one more front (either
> North Korea or China, or most likely both). A Chinese peasant with an
> SKS would be no match for a US Marine who has cutting edge technology
> right at his fingertips. As I said before, if the Chinese choose to
> fight the United States they will have their asses handed to them by the
> best fighting men and women in the world.
>
>
> S.S.I.N. wrote:
> > "Jay C"> This is assinine. If we were to go to war with the Chinese over
> > Taiwan,
> >
> >>the Chinese will have their asses handed to them. For that reason, the
> >>Chinese know that they can not attack Taiwan. The Chinese military, while
> >>large, is still basically just a third world military, no match for US
> >>forces.
> >
> >
> >
> > let me explain something to you about china.
> > At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
> > what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
> > that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
> >
> > or picture it this way.
> > camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
> > forks !
> > china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
> > eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over run.
> > Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world countries
> > in banning landmines?
> >
> > after WW2 the soviets were thinking of invading china.
> > so china sent them a message simply stating "for every soldier you send we
> > will send 100 "
> > needless to say the soviets didn't even step foot over the line.
> >
> > the only things saving the usa is that china doesn't have enough
> > boats/planes to send their troops over seas.
> > and that the civilian population of the usa is well armed (but the civilians
> > are being disarmed, fast !)
> >
> > If the usa tried to fight china over in Asia, the usa ground troops would
> > have their asses handed to them.
> > The usa rapid firepower scares the enemy not to attack as they reload. like
> > in Iraq. one mini gun would turn a truck into confetti in 2-5 seconds. then
> > be empty. but scaring the Iraq soldiers into retreat. Chinese will attack
> > under any conditions. or be killed by their own forces.
> >
> > the original message tells of their first nuclear test.
> > it doesn't tell of how they would set of a nuke and have 200,000 troops rush
> > to ground zero. slowly working on ways to raise troop survival.
> > if nukes are used you can be dam sure the Chinese will stay tucked in their
> > fox holes to kill usa troops wiping dirt from their eyes after the blast.
> >
Andrew Chaplin
news:42d9d210$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
| Winston Smith wrote:
|
| > First scenario
| > By ship to Canada, Central and/or South America and then across
| > thousands of miles of US land borders.
|
| Oh? So you think that they won't be seriously interdicted whilst
| trying? This presupposes they have the means to ship an effective
| army to North America - and get enough of it there to be effective -
| which in I consider highly unlikely. What is the US and the rest of
| the free worlds military doing while this is going on. I'm sure the
| Canadian Defence Force might have some objection.
The Canadian government certainly would object and deploy the Canadian Armed
Forces ("Forces" plural meaning the regular force, the reserve force and the
special force when constituted). One could likely count on a recall of the
primary reserve and the supplementary reserve (those released from regular
force and primary reserve service less than 10 years prior and who have
agreed to remain on the SR list) and a fair number of volunteers from those
released who had not agreed to be placed on the SR list.
The Ogdensburg Declaration of 18 August 1940 still operates (the Permanent
Joint Board on Defence/Defense still meets
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=298 to coordinate
Canada/U.S. defence planning) and the U.S. would be invited to act in
concert with the CF.
Any incursion from the outside on North American territory, be it U.S. or
Canadian -- or even Mexican, if they asked for help -- would be effectively
countered.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
The CO
>
> Yes, all true, and don't forget, once they did land on US shores, IF
> they even could, they would face 280 million armed Americans, most of
> whom would be biting at the bit to take home a "Chinese Souvenier" to
> hang over the fireplace mantle.
>
> I know I would want one ;-)
IIRC, the wily Admiral Yamamoto once said that it would be impossible
to invade America because "there would be a rifle behind every blade
of grass"..
--
The CO
The CO
> Wasnt that the sceanario from Red Dawn?
Wasn't it Cuba dropping paratroops into the heartland combined with
a Russian invasion via Alaska and Canada? Been many years since I
saw it. It seemed unlikely to me at the time.
---
The CO
Stuart Grey
> >http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
>
>>
>>
>>> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
>>> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
>>> to a senior Chinese military official.
>>
>>
>
> the Chinese will have their asses handed to them. For that reason, the
> Chinese know that they can not attack Taiwan. The Chinese military,
> while large, is still basically just a third world military, no match
> for US forces.
Bill Clinton signed the techonology transfer to China that enabled them
to build effective MIRV missiles that can hit multiple targets in the
United States.
Bill Clinton held the FBI at bay while Chinese spies (how the hell did
people from the People's Republic of China get security clearances,
anyway?!) took hard disks with the designs of US nuclear war heads that
were MIRV capable.
Bill Clinton took $300,000 donation from the Communist Chinese Army, but
gave it back when caught. (Why wasn't he tried for treason?!)
The Chinese have tested a nuclear weapon that has characteristics
identical to our MIRV sized nuclear war head.
I think where I'm going with this is that China doesn't believe it has
to defeat the US with their conventional military, You know they are
nuclear capable because Clinton and the Democrats sold our nation down
the river. The Chinese only need to defeat Taiwan. They believe that
their nuclear forces would be an effective deterant. Their nuclear
forces are credible, because WE designed and tested them ourselves.
Stuart Grey
> In misc.survivalism Jay C <jayce...@here.net> wrote:
>
>> >http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
>>
>>>
>>>>China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
>>>>attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
>>>>to a senior Chinese military official.
>>>
>
>>This is assinine. If we were to go to war with the Chinese over Taiwan,
>>the Chinese will have their asses handed to them. For that reason, the
>>Chinese know that they can not attack Taiwan. The Chinese military,
>>while large, is still basically just a third world military, no match
>>for US forces.
>
>
>
> HTH.
>
> And BTW, if you ever get the hankering to become a military strategist,
> just take a cold shower instead.
On the other hand, looking at a chart of "red" and "blue" by precinct,
one sees that all the target areas that China might hit are "blue".
Eskwired is an example of a person who votes "blue".
Humm. If China moves against Taiwan, let's defend Taiwan! Sounds like a
win-win situation. WE save Taiwan, and we improve the demographics of
the US 100%!
Stuart Grey
> "Jay C"
> The only possible threat the
>
>>Chinese pose is with their ICBMs; however, it is unlikely that they even
JayC have The People's Republic of North Korea confused with The
People's Republic of China.
>> So at most we
>>face the possiblity of having a dozen cities annihlated, while we have the
>>capability to destroy EVERY major city in China. For that reason alone the
>>Chinese would never confront the United States militarily.
No, it's MADD.
> if they can launch satellites into space
> they can put a nuke on it. all they have to do is tell it when and where in
> the world to fall !
>
> you are a bit short sighted aren't you?
So, basically, the argument is was, "if it's just the left coast, the
losses are acceptable".
The winds blow to the East. People in the West just die first, that's all.
Stuart Grey
> S.S.I.N. wrote:
>
>> if they can launch satellites into space
>> they can put a nuke on it. all they have to do is tell it when and
>> where in the world to fall !
>
>
> Oh really. IF you think it's that simple you should try it sometime.
> I'll stand on the spot where you reckon it will land.
President Clinton signed the transfer of Loral technology to China to do
just that very thing. You not only would lose the bet, you'd not be able
to pay it off!
Stuart Grey
> America will not start WW III over Taiwan------With the Exception of
> the Bush adminstration.
They will wait for President Clinton. Even though Hillary has Bill's
testicles, Bill never had any balls.
Yes, Hillary will renig on our mutual defense treaty, let Taiwan fall,
and thus make a mockery of all our treaties with every other nation.
Pope Secola VI
cities would be a distinct social and economic improvement over what we
have now.
--
3rd Commandment of the Church of Pope Secola VI
If thine enemy smite thee on the left cheek,
offer him up, 8 inches of cold steel in his belly.
Stuart Grey
> S.S.I.N. wrote:
>
>> "Gunner" >
>>
>>> The land bridge between China and the US is where again?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> hhhhmmm.
>> I think it's called the immigration office !
>
>
> No, they just all get forged papers from Beijing, that say they were
> born in Hong Kong. They then can travel to Canada, no problem. From
> Canada, they take the tour busses to Seattle. From Seattle, they go
> anywhere.
Well, great. They can fight with the Mexican and Islamic invasion.
> Just imagine! Millions and millions of Chinese military, arriving day
> after day on tour busses! And it can never be stopped! You know why? The
> Tour Bus Manufacturing Association will bribe Congress because they're
> making so many tour busses to carry all of the Chinese military!
>
> USA is doomed by the nature of Capitalism.
It has nothing to do with Capitalism. It has to do with socialist who
have passed laws and won't protect America. It has to do with a plot
which is over half a century old to rot America out from the inside.
And the useful idiots, the Democrats, are going to make it happen and
bring their own doom down on their heads.
Sort of like, Rome.
Stuart Grey
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> The CO wrote:
>>
>>> S.S.I.N. wrote:
>>>
>>>> if they can launch satellites into space
>>>> they can put a nuke on it. all they have to do is tell it when and
>>>> where in the world to fall !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh really. IF you think it's that simple you should try it sometime.
>>> I'll stand on the spot where you reckon it will land.
>>
>>
>>
>> President Clinton signed the transfer of Loral technology to China to
>> do just that very thing. You not only would lose the bet, you'd not be
>> able to pay it off!
>>
> Personally I think that the disappearance of all the major American
> cities would be a distinct social and economic improvement over what we
> have now.
Maybe you say it for a joke, but it probably would.
We wouldn't have ports, so we would have to rebuild our own industry.
We wouldn't have Democrats, so there would be no demand for illegal
alien labor, nor could we pay them.
No one would expect us to be the world's cop anymore.
Without Democrats, we could go nuclear and become energy independent.
We'd be fresh out of liberal/communist college professors.
We'd almost certainly close our borders and purge our ranks of those
that advocate policies that would kill us.
Sanity would return to political discussions. No more socialist hidden
agendas, no more trying to get the U.S. destroyed because, well, they
managed to get us destroyed.
Plenty of slave labor, since there are a few Democrats who don't live in
cities. Hell, all they wanted was to be slaves anyway; we give them what
they want and call it a "win-win" situation.
There seems to be no end to the goodness. Yes, in such a terrible event,
we must count our blessings.
Pope Secola VI
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>> In misc.survivalism Jay C <jayce...@here.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
>>>>> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
>>>>> to a senior Chinese military official.
<snipped the bull shit>
If you shit heads would have studied any Chinese history you would have
found out that during its four thousand years of recorded history every
time there has been a change in government is in the chaos of civil unrest.
Just what do you think is going to happen when all those Chinese workers
in plants that are building stuff for the American market are told that
the plant is closed because the U.S. has slapped an embargo on all
Chinese goods. (Remember all those factory workers are now living in
small apartments with electrical appliances, telephones, televisions and
are dreaming of getting a car soon.
With China only producing about 60 to 80% ( depends on how intensive
farming they go into) of the food they need to feed their population,
famine will break out. With an American embargo of farm goods on china,
the American take over of Canadian ports, (you really think Canada is
going to defy the United States on something this important), the
stopping of grain and beef shipments from Argentina and Australia.
Our nukes will go to take out hydroelectric and flood control Dams,
electrical power generation sites, Coal fields, fertilizer plants,
transport net works.
In about two years China will implode just like the Soviet Union of its
own weight.
What about the United States. Well we will have a new birth of freedom
with the major cities and the fucked up now dead populations that used
to live in them gone.
Stuart Grey
> The colonel is citing a 1964 doctrine. He seems to be stuck in a time
> warp. I have no doubt there are cukoos like him over there;
If the Chinese government didn't want him to say it, he wouldn't have
said it.
> the US has
> its own share of Dr. Strangelove wannabes.
They are not like us. You can't say that because we have an outspoken
general who professes a view that isn't U.S. policy, that their generals
don't speak for their government.
By and large, their generals ARE their government. And they are not
chosen for diversity of opinion.
> Anyways, China has
> possession of a LOT of promisory notes from the US treasury. If they
> nuke the US all that paper goes to hell, not even good for wiping.
if they can't by Unical, "Spirit of '76", because we won't let them,
then that paper is good for naught but butt wiping anyway.
> There are a lot of Taiwanese investors who own plants in the mainland.
> (Of course these could be nationalized and sold for a song to local
> Chinese investors.) These are facts. I think that neither side wants
> matters to escalate. If anything, the Chinese might apply some
> economic pressure but I fail to see what they would gain that would be
> an improvement over the status quo; however, the US is its largest
> market.
The Chinese look at the long run, unlike us. And the investment of
Taiwan on the mainland makes it even more of a target, as taking Taiwan
brings the profits back into the Chinese economy rather than as an export.
Pope Secola VI
Wolf ammunition (made in the former soviet Union) has sold more ammo to
American gun owners since the fall of the Soviet Union than it did to
the entire red army since the end of world war two.
Just what are we doing with all that ammo???????
Stuart Grey
To be blunt, Canada has no significant miliary. The inclusion of the
Canadian military in various operations is more symbolic than it is
militarily signficant.
Given the intent of some NATO members to make Afghanistan a NATO
operation and then terminate the operation, thus nullifying the US right
to self protection, I don't think the US wants to depend on or work with
any of these so called "allies".
Stuart Grey
Unlikely? It was ... laughable.
I mean, I suppose for what it was; many movies are not intended to be
taken seriously; sort of like the Democrats.
It's just fiction.
I wouldn't even bother with it.
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:48:45 -0400, Tiny Human Ferret
> <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>
>>leadfoot wrote:
>>
>>>>let me explain something to you about china.
>>>>At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
>>>>what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
>>>>that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>>>>
>>>>or picture it this way.
>>>>camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
>>>>forks !
>>>>china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
>>>>eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over
>>>>run.
>>>>Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
>>>>countries in banning landmines?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>facility, in South Korea. A year later, they have the world's largest
>>fleet and the world's largest army halfway across the Pacific.
>
>
> This in Navy Language..is called a Turkey Shoot.
How is it, then, that when the US Navy sets sail, it's not called a
Turkey Shoot?
>
> Perhaps the marine maps will call the resulting steel reefs The China
> Shoals
Why aren't there similar names for the US fleet?
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
William Black
I wouldn't bother.
It was on TV here a few months ago and I watched almost half of it and then
realised that there was a danger of death as I almost haemorrhaged from
boredom.
I enjoyed the portrayal of the Cuban and the Russians though, the last time
I saw stereotypes as crude as that was when I last watched a Norman Wisdom
movie...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:05:29 +0930, The CO <the...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Bravado is stupid.
>>
>>Apparently not as stupid as you. Do the world a favour, get a job
>>in the planning division of the Chinese military.
>>But, realistically, they *aren't* stupid and wouldn't have you.
>>Nor any of your whacko concepts about how to invade North America...
>>
>>--
>>The CO
>
>
> Wasnt that the sceanario from Red Dawn?
Actually, the scenario from Red Dawn was that an awful lot of illegal
alien cleaning ladies were really intelligence officers from Nicaragua
and other centralamerican communist outfits. That is not the least
unbelievable. See also the history of origins of Mara Salvatrucha.
Once the illegal-alien cleaning ladies got done gathering all needed
intelligence, infiltrators prepare to take and hold at least one major
airport in the general vicinity of the Rockies, mostly through
saturation of legitimate application processes for positions at thosde
facilities; once sufficient numbers are in place the rest can be slowly
removed through a series of likely on-the-job injuries or other
"accidents".
One commercial airliner is brought in filled with crack troops and they
secure the airfield long enough for a second commercial airliner filled
with crack troops to land, reinforcing the first airliner's delivery
which has set about coordinating with the infiltrators, who would
predictably have taken control of communications and fuel supply and
begin feeding false data to the radar network and air-traffic control.
More "commercial flights" land, are refueled, and take off, headed for
inland bases characterized by being positioned quite near to military
airbases. Small aircraft are commandeered, taken aloft, and crashed in
such a way as to block the military airstrips to prevent scrambling of
fighters. Etc etc. "Commercial airliners" full of troops continue to
land, though they are now fighter-escorted and soon enough the fighters
escorting them are crewed by foreigners though they are the latest in
commandeered US warcraft. By the time open warfare begins, Canadian
airpower has been effectively neutralized and the Great White North is a
wide-open back door to the sparsely settled border areas of the
northern-tier States, and almost every airstrip, commercial or private,
sees at least one invading aircraft and troop contingent. Significant
expenditures of conventional arms mostly in airstrikes remove Alaskan
facilities as roadblocks to a flotilla of "fishing boats" which rush
south along the coastal shipping lanes. By now, Spokane has been taken
and there is nothing much to deter the mass landings in Bellingham WA
from moving rapidly overland to join with other forces securing passes
across the Rockies.
Etc etc etc.
Tiny Human Ferret
Yeah, right. Canada's strategy against any invasion making it past the
US Alaskan defenses is to (a) remove all fuel and blow holes in the
roads, if it's winter, and let them run out of fuel and freeze; and, (b)
if it's summer, remove all fuel and blow holes in the roads so that
the enemy heavy equipment will get stuck in the mud. Part of their
strategy depends on who is the enemy: if it's the Russians, basically
stay out of their way because they're used to the same conditions as are
Canadians; if the enemy is the Chinese, basically stay out of the way
and let them lose all of their equipment but recognize that Chinese
infantry so vastly outnumber all Canadians that if the Chinese land in
Canada, it's time to start studying Mandarin.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Andrew Chaplin
news:iuCdnfhMB_Z...@comcast.com...
|
| To be blunt, Canada has no significant miliary. The inclusion of the
| Canadian military in various operations is more symbolic than it is
| militarily signficant.
|
| Given the intent of some NATO members to make Afghanistan a NATO
| operation and then terminate the operation, thus nullifying the US right
| to self protection, I don't think the US wants to depend on or work with
| any of these so called "allies".
Perhaps, but the only thing worse than having to deal with allies is having
no allies.
RONCLA...@aol.com
I knwo the Smal ize of the Canadian Military makes it less of a
contribution, but I met a Few Canadian Snipers in Afgainistan, I'd Buy
them a beer again for theier Help! They helped save US Lives!
Ron
amin...@netdoor.com
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>"Stuart Grey" <stuar...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:iuCdnfhMB_Z...@comcast.com...
>|
>| To be blunt, Canada has no significant miliary. The inclusion of the
>| Canadian military in various operations is more symbolic than it is
>| militarily signficant.
>|
>| Given the intent of some NATO members to make Afghanistan a NATO
>| operation and then terminate the operation, thus nullifying the US right
>| to self protection, I don't think the US wants to depend on or work with
>| any of these so called "allies".
>
>Perhaps, but the only thing worse than having to deal with allies is having
>no allies.
The only real ally that the US has is the UK. But it is nice to have
the best for our only one.
Al Minyard
Guns don't kill people.
Husbands that come home early kill people !!
DM
> The only real ally that the US has is the UK.
I'm sure many Australians would be more than a little put out by that ;-)
DM
Rex Tincher
A small army which is well-equipped and well-trained can defeat a much
larger army that isn't as well prepared. The Russians found that out
the hard way in World War I.
--
"A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after
her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when
police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home."
--- The State Journal-Register Online - Springfield, Illinois,
1 March 2005. More details at: http://www.tincher.to/stevens.htm
~^ beancounter ~^
People's Liberation Army, Liu Zhenwu, departed China yesterday at the
head of a six-member delegation for a visit to the United States at the
invitation of the U.S. Pacific Command, the official Xinhua news agency
reported.
Stuart Grey
The concern is how much of our technology and intelligence did the
Chinese get for that $300,000 bribe to the treasonous Democrats?
I mean, the Democrats even gave the bribe back to the Red Chinese Army.
How sweet for the commies.
We know that they got our MIRV warhead and our ICBM targeting
technology. I wouldn't be surprised if they had gained an equally
damaging amout of intel on our conventional weapons.
It may not be a turkey shoot. They seem ready for us.
Jack Love
Beat me to it! And the Danes are pretty darn consistent as well.
johnny@.
Mexico is consistent, they refused to back us in the war on terror, and
accuse us of human rights violations of their citizens, that sneak into
the United States a the rate of a million a year. Vicente Fox says we
are racists because we want to stop this flood of illegal aliens, and
says the Mexicans that sneak across the border are heroes.
FRED WELLMAN
"Winston Smith" <bo...@buttterfly.net> wrote in message
news:1121562110.c2ef0f5a597d9f60f6c32fcfe9972504@secureusenet...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:26:06 -0700, "leadfoot" <nos...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>>> let me explain something to you about china.
>>> At an given time they have a minimum of 300,000,000 men of military age.
>>> what does the usa have? 1,000,000 at best.
>>> that means odds of 300 to 1 on the battle fields.
>>>
>>> or picture it this way.
>>> camp David fully armed, against a rush of chinamen armed with only pitch
>>> forks !
>>> china can send in so many troops with pitchforks that camp David would
>>> eventually run out of ammo(or unable to reload fast enough) and be over
>>> run.
>>> Why do you think the usa refuses to join the rest of the 1st world
>>> countries in banning landmines?
>>
>>
>>How are they getting to Camp David? Swimming?
>
> By ship to Canada, Central and/or South America and then across
> not be an impossible problem. They only need a secure base of
> operations to receive shipping and a transportation corridor to the US
> border. Are we going to defend the shoreline of two continents?
> That's what, 20 or 30 miles of beach? We have trouble with one land
> border where they mostly don't cross by force
We have protected two continents since Monroe was President. No President
could allow such an event and stay in office. Opposed landings are very
difficult. The last Chinese invasion was against NV. They did not do well.
> Second scenario
> Tenderize our military with nukes. That also takes out the cities
> where factories and new recruits are to be found. Navel blockade of
> our shipping. Fighting capacity is now down to what survived with no
> additions. Then an aerial landing in a sparsely populated state.
> Spread out from their.
If you thing the US would not respond by totally destroying China if one
nuke hit the US you are sadly mistaken. Who, except the French, would by
allied with China? Most of the Europe would be on our side because they
know they would be next. Plus many countries hold US bond which are
worthless with out our Government. The US public after 9-11 would have much
less opposition to using nukes. We will not fight the Korean war again. In
my opinion we should have stopped it with a warning and then nukes then.
>
> Bravado is stupid.
> --
> W§ mostly in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira
Fred
Tiny Human Ferret
They're also modernizing their forces as rapidly as they can. One might
be a bit curious as to what it is that spurs them on to this goal;
anyone could reasonably say "but China has no real enemies". If nobody
threatens China, why should China need to modernize their military?
Certainly reform is good, but why the perceived need for competitiveness?
China has no enemies. By now, all the world knows, if you invade China,
and you are successful, all that happens is that in three generations
the invaders are all Chinese too, and China is only stronger, and with
much more extensive trading relationships.
;)
Tiny Human Ferret
>>The only real ally that the US has is the UK.
>
>
> I'm sure many Australians would be more than a little put out by that ;-)
I'm sure many Australians -- particularly younger ones -- aren't the
least bit interested in having Oz included in the list of allies to the US.
Tiny Human Ferret
All 25,000 of them, right you are.
TheCO
> The CO wrote:
>
>> Gunner wrote:
>>
>>> Wasnt that the sceanario from Red Dawn?
>>
>>
>>
>> Wasn't it Cuba dropping paratroops into the heartland combined with
>> a Russian invasion via Alaska and Canada? Been many years since I
>> saw it. It seemed unlikely to me at the time.
>
>
> Unlikely? It was ... laughable.
Um, yes. My talent for understatement lol.
> I mean, I suppose for what it was; many movies are not intended to be
> taken seriously; sort of like the Democrats.
>
> It's just fiction.
>
> I wouldn't even bother with it.
I reached the same conclusion after about 20 minutes into it.
The CO
zzbu...@netscape.net
Moderate Mammal wrote:
> More good news for you kids. Don't worry though as Jorge Bush is
> working hard at selling American companies to China.
>
> I'm sure though after were nuked Bush and Blair will make sure no one
> says anything bad about the Chinese after we surrender to Walmart
> CEO's.
>
> --
> Keith
>
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
>
> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
> to a senior Chinese military official.
>
> "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition
> on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to
> respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the
> People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
That's interesting, since we're prepared to turn
all off Asia, Cuba, and California into a permanent nuclear
waste dump that will never again bother Jane Fonda
conerning the moron China syndrome.
The CO
> Wolf ammunition (made in the former soviet Union) has sold more ammo to
> American gun owners since the fall of the Soviet Union than it did to
> the entire red army since the end of world war two.
>
> Just what are we doing with all that ammo???????
>
Some is being shot at targets,
Some is being used for hunting,
Some is being stockpiled by survivalists,
If the Chinese invaded they would likely wind up with a lot of
it. One round at a time at a little under muzzle velocity.
--
The CO
Bob Brock
wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Jay C <jayce...@here.net> wrote:
>
>> However, since war with China is rather more likely we have
>> contingencies in place that are planned down to the most minute
>> details.
>
>Yep. Same for Iraq, eh?
>
>Moron.
Pretty much. We probably envision the Chinese throwing flowers at the
feet of the liberators just like we did in Iraq. On a more serious
note, we did fight a war with China in the 1950's. We already know
how that turned out and the Chinese didn't have nukes back then.
Bob Brock
wrote:
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>> Yes, all true, and don't forget, once they did land on US shores, IF
>> they even could, they would face 280 million armed Americans, most of
>> whom would be biting at the bit to take home a "Chinese Souvenier" to
>> hang over the fireplace mantle.
>>
>> I know I would want one ;-)
>
>IIRC, the wily Admiral Yamamoto once said that it would be impossible
>to invade America because "there would be a rifle behind every blade
>of grass"..
The Japanese didn't have the manpower that the Chinese have. However,
given current economic trends, a better question would be, why invade
the US when you can simply buy it in a couple of decades?
Bob Brock
wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> Wasnt that the sceanario from Red Dawn?
>
>Wasn't it Cuba dropping paratroops into the heartland combined with
>a Russian invasion via Alaska and Canada? Been many years since I
>saw it. It seemed unlikely to me at the time.
>
>---
>The CO
Nope, that wasn't it.
The CO
>
> The Japanese didn't have the manpower that the Chinese have.
But like the Japanese, they lack the logistics to invade anything across
a water barrier. If this were not so the fuss over Taiwan would have
long since been solved in their favour.
> However, given current economic trends, a better question would be, why invade
> the US when you can simply buy it in a couple of decades?
Somewhat agree, though I doubt they will ever be able to 'buy' it in the
sense you mean. More to the point, why screw up your best source of
revenue and trade, not to mention killing off all your other markets
in one fell swoop by starting a major war.
Make no mistake, one nuke on US soil or that of an ally and there
*would* be a major war involving at least a partial nuclear exchange.
--
The CO
Bob Brock
wrote:
>Pope Secola VI wrote:
Hell, we are scared shitless of a few Arabs. Send a few thousand
Chinese over to commit acts of sabotage and the US infrastructure is
screwed. Hell, as fast as we are making friends abroad, they could
probably find enough volunteers from the Mideast to do it for them.
Bob Brock
wrote:
>Bob Brock wrote:
>>
>> The Japanese didn't have the manpower that the Chinese have.
>
>But like the Japanese, they lack the logistics to invade anything across
>a water barrier. If this were not so the fuss over Taiwan would have
>long since been solved in their favour.
>
>> However, given current economic trends, a better question would be, why invade
>> the US when you can simply buy it in a couple of decades?
>
>Somewhat agree, though I doubt they will ever be able to 'buy' it in the
>sense you mean. More to the point, why screw up your best source of
>revenue and trade, not to mention killing off all your other markets
>in one fell swoop by starting a major war.
I mean it is the sense that the energy corporations have bought the
current government and now the Chinese are buying the energy
companies.
>
>Make no mistake, one nuke on US soil or that of an ally and there
>*would* be a major war involving at least a partial nuclear exchange.
You mean like we hunted down and bought Osama to justice?
Gio Medici
>>China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
>>attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according
>>to a senior Chinese military official.
>
>And this is not the first time they have done it. In their culture I
>suspect a blowhard bully sort would be quickly called to task and
>removed from power for making that threat and that would warn off any
>others from repeating it - unless it is in fact part of the planning.
>
>See the article I posted below re: how US and China oil interests
>conflict in Iraq.
>
>Consider how much they are increasing their navy, especially
>submarines and the shore battery around Taiwan. Even though they need
>our consumer markets, we need their investment money and no longer
>even make a long list of everyday items. They are fast taking the
>drivers seat.
>
>I think I read somewhere that 300 R&D centers have been relocated to
>China by US companies. Reflect on the technical know-how present that
>is.
>
>I suspect a showdown over Taiwan will kick off the festivities. Some
>saber rattling, maybe a shot across the bow, and then some politician
>on one side or the other will be a blow hard or will feel the need to
>prove they are not backing down. Suddenly it's the 50s again. Doctor
>Strangelove where are you?
I skipped through the entire thread, but didn't find anyone concerned
about Dr. Strangelove's bitch of a sister. You know, the one that
works in the class 4 biolab.
Gio
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>I mean it is the sense that the energy corporations have bought the
>current government and now the Chinese are buying the energy
>companies.
This is the best and most believable line yet in a series of
ridiculous scenarios.
Yup Dubya, Cheney and Rummy are the oleic trio who screwed up America
based on a faulty oil strategy. The Chinese realise this. Buy up
the world's oil producing resources and you buy America.
Glenn Dowdy
"PaPaPeng" <papa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fvtnd1l0sai86mj8b...@4ax.com...
I wonder if they've read _Red Storm Rising_.
Glenn D.
William Black
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:ej8od1ho55gm449el...@4ax.com...
> In Re: 'China Will Nuke US' on 16 Jul 2005 07:35:11 -0700, by
> raya...@yahoo.com, we read:
>
> >America will not start WW III over Taiwan------With the Exception of
> >the Bush adminstration.
>
> WWIII has already begun.
It can't have done, I'd have seen the mushroom clouds...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Gunner
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
>news:ej8od1ho55gm449el...@4ax.com...
>> In Re: 'China Will Nuke US' on 16 Jul 2005 07:35:11 -0700, by
>> raya...@yahoo.com, we read:
>>
>> >America will not start WW III over Taiwan------With the Exception of
>> >the Bush adminstration.
>>
>> WWIII has already begun.
>
>It can't have done, I'd have seen the mushroom clouds...
Actually..we are engaged in WW4. WW3 having been the Cold War.
Gunner
"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown