Chinese Regime Developing Military to Defeat US, Report

[below_freezing]

Erm no, Our military was developed before China was even done massacreing its own people. It was made to defeat the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. After them it was the Soviet Union.

It just so happens it would be just as effective defeating China, but development of it wasn't aimed at China.

You obviously have a hardon for viewing the US as a global dictatorship, and clearly are not open to debate on the subject so i'm not going to even try to change your views, but I can still poke fun at them.

Your quote is ludicrous, a quote from a random forum member isn't US policy, else your posts would have long ago led to China's division with Tibet becoming a state again, Xinjiang gaining its freedom, Inner Mongolia returning to Mongolia, Taiwan gaining its freedom, and Hong Kong returning to British control for good measure.

Massacres? The terrorist Wall Street regime is the world expert on massacres. Ever wonder where the Indians went?

And you think Hillary Clinton is a random forum member? Just google "We will obliterate Iran" hillary clinton. And let's not forget the 10 million Americans who disappeared off the census 1930-1940 and how the US Statistical Department conveniently has 1932-1933 missing from the record. Most americans cannot accept that their government is a global dictatorship that has inflicted at least 2 genocides on the US itself and countless on the rest of the world where they have no real power. That's why most Americans don't even bother voting, because they know their vote doesn't mean anything.

 

[Brotherhood]

Articles from particular hate sites use to get deleted in no time on this forum and the thread starter would be warned (Epoch times), things had change so much on this forum, Indians are allowed to post all kind of craps either from hate sites or unknown email blogs to bash China, even our vietcom use source from (Epoch times), sad and shameful.
Don't believe me, try post some negative news articles regarding India, it will be deleted in no time.
The reason i could think of will be cos most of the members on this forum happened to be Indians, you don't want to upset your biggest customer, will you?

 

[Aramsogo]

America's main military strategy against China is the same with Iran and the former Soviet Union. They want the Chinese government to collapse. They dream about it A LOT. They don't want to fight a messy war with China or even Iran. They want regime change through economic collapse, popular uprising, insurgency or coup d'etat. In fact, this is the same strategy they have used for the last 65 years against every country not under US control. So I agree with those who say only Chinese people can stop China's rise.

 

[cloneman]

America's main military strategy against China is the same with Iran and the former Soviet Union. They want the Chinese government to collapse. They dream about it A LOT. They don't want to fight a messy war with China or even Iran. They want regime change through economic collapse, popular uprising, insurgency or coup d'etat. In fact, this is the same strategy they have used for the last 65 years against every country not under US control. So I agree with those who say only Chinese people can stop China's rise.

Lol,it seems yank itself is in economy collapsing.

 

[below_freezing]

America's main military strategy against China is the same with Iran and the former Soviet Union. They want the Chinese government to collapse. They dream about it A LOT. They don't want to fight a messy war with China or even Iran. They want regime change through economic collapse, popular uprising, insurgency or coup d'etat. In fact, this is the same strategy they have used for the last 65 years against every country not under US control. So I agree with those who say only Chinese people can stop China's rise.

Every country they are able to militarily defeat, they will do so without hesitation: Yugoslavia, Iraq.
Every country they are not able to militarily defeat, they will do so through false flag propaganda, economic collapse, coup, treason, rebellions, terrorism, etc.

 

[gambit]

Every country they are able to militarily defeat, they will do so without hesitation: Yugoslavia, Iraq.
Every country they are not able to militarily defeat, they will do so through false flag propaganda, economic collapse, coup, treason, rebellions, terrorism, etc.

Utter BS. Your knowledge and understanding of history is as sorry as your made up statistics. Yugoslavia? That was mainly a European affair. The US being the largest member of NATO would of course contribute the greatest resources. The fact that the UN determined a genocide was going on would also contribute to a good degree of urgency for military intervention. Iraq? How long did the Saddam regime stayed in power before it was deposed? How about through three US Presidents? So there goes your 'without hesitation' nonsense.

 

[siegecrossbow]

"Development wasn't aimed at China"?

I'm pretty sure the Taliban or the Baath Party don't have flying carpets capable of matching the F-22 or B-2... Nor do the Iraqi civilians that seem to have a hard time escaping your helicopters' 30mm cannons.

Think that China is the only country that "massacres its own people"? Think again.

Hahaha looks like my flying carpet quote is becoming popular.

 

[below_freezing]

Utter BS. Your knowledge and understanding of history is as sorry as your made up statistics. Yugoslavia? That was mainly a European affair. The US being the largest member of NATO would of course contribute the greatest resources. The fact that the UN determined a genocide was going on would also contribute to a good degree of urgency for military intervention. Iraq? How long did the Saddam regime stayed in power before it was deposed? How about through three US Presidents? So there goes your 'without hesitation' nonsense.

So you admit, the US engages in false flag propaganda, psychological warfare, terrorism, economic espionage and sponsoring of dissidents in rival countries it is unable to militarily defeat.

 

[gambit]

So you admit, the US engages in false flag propaganda, psychological warfare, terrorism, economic espionage and sponsoring of dissidents in rival countries it is unable to militarily defeat.

That is a ridiculous argument because it presume there are countries the US could not militarily defeat. You think China could take on Iraq? If not, then if the US could defeat Iraq, then odds are good that the US could defeat China. But it is good to note that you tap-danced around the Yugoslavia and Iraq nonsense.

 

[Aramsogo]

That is a ridiculous argument because it presume there are countries the US could not militarily defeat. You think China could take on Iraq? If not, then if the US could defeat Iraq, then odds are good that the US could defeat China. But it is good to note that you tap-danced around the Yugoslavia and Iraq nonsense.

Your arguments are silly. A nuclear power cannot truly defeat another nuclear state. The US made horrible, horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq (dissolving the Iraqi army for one). So yes, I think China could have overthrown Saddam too (he didn't even have an air force) and done a much better and cost effective job.

 

[CardSharp]

Your arguments are silly. A nuclear power cannot truly defeat another nuclear state. The US made horrible, horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq (dissolving the Iraqi army for one). So yes, I think China could have overthrown Saddam too (he didn't even have an air force) and done a much better and cost effective job.

Ironic isn't? The US was so eager for a short bloody war that they can get out of in 3 month that they made a complete hash of the initial situations that ended up costing more blood and 8+ years and counting.

 

[Aramsogo]

Ironic isn't? The US was so eager for a short bloody war that they can get out of in 3 month that they made a complete hash of the initial situations that ended up costing more blood and 8+ years and counting.

The real irony is that once the US pulls out, Iran will be in real control of Iraq. 8+ years and multiple trillions for absolutely nothing. In fact, it's probably worst for US strategically than if Saddam was still in charge.

 

[gambit]

Your arguments are silly. A nuclear power cannot truly defeat another nuclear state.

Even with nuclear weapons, the issue remains the same: numerical parity. Against the Soviet Union at its peak, then yes, it would have been mutually assured destruction for all parties involved. However, against China, if there is a nuclear exchange, the numerical superiority of US nuclear stockpile would cover more Chinese targets than vice versa.

The US made horrible, horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq (dissolving the Iraqi army for one).

This is where you, just like so many who believed the popular press, got it wrong. The Iraqi military, in the second round, effectively dissolved itself. We found discarded uniforms on the way to Baghdad. The bulk of the Iraq military was Shiite while the its top leadership was Sunni. Those who discarded their uniforms simply went back to their villages or cities and laid low until the fighting was over.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-999...A374C1820234C3E0E0A60641A617F127119731B7B1D27

Thousands of Saddam Hussein's 360,000-man army deserted until the military was little more than long strips of uniforms discarded along empty highways. Just why puzzles even the officers who played major roles in the war.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,449441,00.html

If they did hold soldiers at any time, the men had left before any shots were fired by or at them. In some places there are still signs of hasty departures: along the roadsides, discarded uniforms and berets; in buildings, scattered maps, manuals and gas masks.

That many Republican Guard troops had simply given up became clear to U.S. forces even as they marched toward Baghdad. For instance, the day after the Marines passed through the outskirts of Kut with unexpectedly light fighting, despite the supposed presence of the Medina division, they started running into long lines of young men walking on the road. "There is no doubt these are the Republican Guard we didn't come up against yesterday. They all have military haircuts," Marine Lieut. Colonel Bryan McCoy told a TIME correspondent that day. After U.S. forces began arresting men wearing combat boots, deserters tended to sport bare feet or cheap new sandals.

So when Paul Bremer officially dissolved the Iraqi army, it was largely symbolic but unfortunately we underestimated the impact of that gesture. Even then, it does not negate the overwhelming physical and anecdotal evidences that by the time the US military was in Baghdad, the Iraqi military was effectively no more other than for the hardcore Saddam loyalist corps.

So yes, I think China could have overthrown Saddam too (he didn't even have an air force) and done a much better and cost effective job.

For Desert Storm...???

 

[CardSharp]

The real irony is that once the US pulls out, Iran will be in real control of Iraq. 8+ years and multiple trillions for absolutely nothing. In fact, it's probably worst for US strategically than if Saddam was still in charge.

Leaving Iraq will leave behind a Iran friendly Shiia Muslim government who's already been proven to have links with Tehran.

 

[gambit]

The real irony is that once the US pulls out, Iran will be in real control of Iraq. 8+ years and multiple trillions for absolutely nothing. In fact, it's probably worst for US strategically than if Saddam was still in charge.

But that does not negate the fact that war is largely a military versus military affair and in that, the US military did its job: Beat the crap out of the feared Iraqi military.