My New World Order, Part One

2007-03-30 08:42:11

#51

CannonFodder11b: Purple Heart Recipient; +73|6975|Fort Lewis WA

Well crap time to start digging that nuke shelter in my back yard, stocking up on ammo for my weapons, and buying SPAM.

On a serious note though, china is the least of our worries.
Like Kmarion said, Putin right now is the one to keep an eye on. That guy is scarier then GWB Jr.
But then again.....He is former KGB. I was in Korea when Putin was put into office. The russians I knew got pissed and scared when they found out he was going to be in power.

But then again there were lots of Americans that probably had heart attacks after GWB Jr. was re-elected.

2007-03-30 09:06:27

#52

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6730|The Land of Scott Walker

Bubbalo wrote:
But it's not even that you don't invade. You act like best buddies half the time.

I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.

2007-03-30 09:09:56

#53

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6846

Stingray24 wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
But it's not even that you don't invade. You act like best buddies half the time.
I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.

You are the world's strongest economy, you harp on about freedom and democracy and how you defend constantly, but you won't take on one of the world's biggest human rights abusers (probably the biggest stable government one other than North Korea)?

2007-03-30 09:17:46

#54

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6814|Global Command

Every money spent, every military excercise they do, all their planning and schemes work towards military confrontation with us.
My shipping container scenario is workable because If they infiltrated tens of thousands of shock troops it would render our nukes powerless to stop them.

2007-03-30 09:21:06

#55

EVieira: Member; +105|6763|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:
For this small series of threads , I require you to suspend your disbelief. You have to go along with my hypothetical. You have to understand I am not advocating anything: merely describing what I see as an alternative system, and what radical steps would be required to accomplish it.

Ok, I'll go along just to see where you're going with this. I hope this is not really about some world conspiracy theory or something like that...

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

2007-03-30 09:28:43

#56

xRBLx: I've got lovely bunch of coconuts!!; +27|6640|England - Kent

Smell like an Illuminati/Freemasonry theroy to me. Tho it is possable....

scary :S

2007-03-30 09:30:09

#57

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6730|The Land of Scott Walker

ATG wrote:
Every money spent, every military excercise they do, all their planning and schemes work towards military confrontation with us.
My shipping container scenario is workable because If they infiltrated tens of thousands of shock troops it would render our nukes powerless to stop them.

Ssssh! The Chinese read teh internets and now you've given them the perfect plan. *hides under desk*

2007-03-30 09:33:48

#58

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6886|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:
Every money spent, every military excercise they do, all their planning and schemes work towards military confrontation with us.
My shipping container scenario is workable because If they infiltrated tens of thousands of shock troops it would render our nukes powerless to stop them.

For our intelligence agencies/satellites/NORAD to completely miss something like that would be highley unlikely. Just as the Chinese have their spies embedded, http://www.nysun.com/article/51450
We have our surveillance in place also. They would have a better chance at putting sombreros on and sneaking across our southern border. Besides, despite the "shock factor" of the Chinese popping out of cargo containers in our ports we have bases all over the world. A nuclear attack is not a means of defending off an invading force on your own soil. Before they got anywhere near our ICBM's they would be airborne (our submarines launch them as well). Neither military would ever have a land invasion.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-30 09:34:13)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-03-30 09:39:02

#59

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6730|The Land of Scott Walker

Bubbalo wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
But it's not even that you don't invade. You act like best buddies half the time.
I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.
You are the world's strongest economy, you harp on about freedom and democracy and how you defend constantly, but you won't take on one of the world's biggest human rights abusers (probably the biggest stable government one other than North Korea)?

Let me make sure I understand, you'd like us to take on China, but not Iraq?

2007-03-30 09:42:15

#60

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6886|132 and Bush

Stingray24 wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.
You are the world's strongest economy, you harp on about freedom and democracy and how you defend constantly, but you won't take on one of the world's biggest human rights abusers (probably the biggest stable government one other than North Korea)?
Let me make sure I understand, you'd like us to take on China, but not Iraq?

2 words... Security Council

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-03-30 09:45:56

#61

topal63: . . .; +533|7003

The tangent direction(s) that this thread could go... seem to me rather indefinite (or even infinite!).

2007-03-30 09:50:02

#62

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6886|132 and Bush

topal63 wrote:
The tangent direction(s) that this thread could go... seem to me rather indefinite (or even infinite!).

I'm waiting for the part where the late night cleaning crew at the Louvre overthrows the French government.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-03-30 09:59:33

#63

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6730|The Land of Scott Walker

Ah, so if we were going to take China over our knee as Bubbalo would have us do we'd have to get the rest of the Security Council to go along? Probably wouldn't happen as Russia may not side with us.

2007-03-30 10:00:54

#64

Liberal-Sl@yer: Certified BF2S Asshole; +131|6741|The edge of sanity

delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
I'd actually suggest we trade less with China and more with India and Indonesia.
yes very good..

I say we go from an importer to an export and the only thing we import is raw materials.

2007-03-30 10:27:33

#65

CoronadoSEAL: pics or it didn't happen; +207|6803|USA

awesome thread dude.

the US is growing increasingly 'aware' of china in terms of military action.

the Navy wants SEALs fluent in these languages in this order:

1.) arabic <-what i'm learning
2.) farsee
3.) chinese <-surprising to me

Last edited by CoronadoSEAL (2007-03-30 10:28:09)

2007-03-30 13:28:13

#66

Villain{NY}: Banned; +44|6629|New York

Interesting thread ATG. It kinda reminds me of that movie "Red Dawn" where the Soviet Union with Cuban allies invaded the U.S. The only difference is that in that particular film China was on our side.

2007-03-30 13:55:06

#67

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7051|Cambridge (UK)

ATG wrote:
June 11, 2022
Mass beheadings in London as Sharia law takes effect.

With Her long time military supporter America now official disbanded as a nation and under joint control of the Socialist Forces of Venezuela and the Chinese army, citizens of England lined up for Islamic Court identification cards.
Those caught without cards or beards are executed the next day.

I'd be OK then. Beards FTW!

2007-03-30 14:57:17

#68

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6639

we would run out of dogs for the china guys to eat pretty fast, than what, cats ?

2007-03-30 16:49:18

#69

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

Braddock wrote:
By the way...

Turquoise wrote:
I hope you realize that China has never been especially close to Pakistan or Iran.
Pakistan and China have been very friendly allies since 1951 and China is one of Pakistan's principal missile suppliers. The US has expressed concern over this in the past.

You got me... Somehow, I mixed up the border conflicts between India and China with Pakistan. It makes sense that China and Pakistan would be on good terms, since China and India aren't.

Apologies to Ender....

2007-03-30 16:58:25

#70

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.
You are the world's strongest economy, you harp on about freedom and democracy and how you defend constantly, but you won't take on one of the world's biggest human rights abusers (probably the biggest stable government one other than North Korea)?
Let me make sure I understand, you'd like us to take on China, but not Iraq?

We should take on China, but in economic terms. We could threaten them with less trade if they didn't improve their human rights (especially with the Uighur minority).

2007-03-30 18:01:29

#71

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6886|132 and Bush

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17872054/

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-03-30 18:06:23

#72

RoosterCantrell: Goodbye :); +399|6765|Somewhere else

Mutually Assured Destruction

2007-03-30 18:08:21

#73

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17872054/

Holy shit... good news...

This is actually something Bush is doing that I agree with... I hope it works.

2007-03-30 23:31:26

#74

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6846

Stingray24 wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

I would love to see China held accountable, but I'm not sure who's ready to sign up for that. The US certainly can't do it alone.
You are the world's strongest economy, you harp on about freedom and democracy and how you defend constantly, but you won't take on one of the world's biggest human rights abusers (probably the biggest stable government one other than North Korea)?
Let me make sure I understand, you'd like us to take on China, but not Iraq?

I'd like you to be honest about the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with freedom and democracy, because if it did there were far worse offenders you could have taken on first.

2007-03-30 23:33:37

#75

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6846

MSNBC wrote:
The Bush administration, facing heavy pressure to deal with soaring trade deficits, said Friday it is imposing economic sanctions against China to protect American paper producers from unfair Chinese government subsidies.

Competing in an aggressive manner economically and hurting the US in doing so is hardly a human rights violation.

BF2S Forums My New World Order, Part One

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

delta4bravonl wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

MSNBC wrote:

Board footer