# The China US conflict



## Whereisup

We need ideas on how China and the United States could live together because a war between China and the United States could end many future hopes for everyone.

On the Jade Rabbit moon rover, a few years ago, on another message board, an officer in Chinese intelligence said that China intends to establish a military base on the Moon. The rover is looking for minerals, so evidently is a first step in developing a Chinese claim to the Moon. China has been especially interested in minerals, and over the past few years has tied up much mineral production throughout the world with multi-decade contracts. In terms of possible long term goals, in the last year, China has been moving to deny rare earth metals to non-Chinese corporations, a gradual step at a time. Also, China is trying to take over all economic sectors of the world. It looks like China wants to destroy many American corporations in financial ways, leaving China as the only superpower in the world.

It would cost the equivalent of an America trillion dollars per year (Chinese prices are different) for a decade or so for China to establish a large military base and some mining operations on the Moon. China could do that if she is motivated enough.

An interesting book has recently come out. It is a novel by a Chinese author, but the blurbs are by several China experts who are saying the book gives an accurate picture of current Chinese thinking and goals. According to the book, China now confidently thinks that the 21st century is the Chinese century, and soon, China will be the leader of the world.

The book is, Chan Koonchung, translated by Michael S. Drake, THE FAT YEARS, 2011, first published by Oxford University Press (really impressive), republished by Doubleday.

This is certainly the most important book of the decade that I know of.

In terms of possible solution ideas, we might ask how China and the US, and other nations, working together, could produce better results for future humanity than a world in which China had a world despotism.

Jim


----------



## Indofred

One has to ask, do you read history?

Take a look at how many wars China has started since 1945 and compare that to the list of wars started by America in the same period.
Then look at the spread of Chinese military bases outside China and compare that to the spread of American military bases outside America.

When you've done that, ask who the aggressor is.


----------



## Whereisup

Indofred said:


> One has to ask, do you read history
> 
> Take a look at how many wars China has started since 1945 and compare that to the list of wars started by America in the same period.
> Then look at the spread of Chinese military bases outside China and compare that to the spread of American military bases outside America.
> 
> When you've done that, ask who the aggressor is.



Given that it is only during the last few years that China's economy and military forces have become strong enough for China to assert herself, your point isn't relevant because it relies on data before China became strong.

As far as I know, every nation in history which has become strong enough has become aggressive. It's a problem with basic human nature. 

What we need to do is, for the first time in history, is find a way to derail the aggressiveness of all powerful nations.

Jim


----------



## Indofred

China trades its way through the world; America invades.
This whole thing is down to American arms manufacturers trying to create a new cold war in order to increase arms sales.
Japan has just made a large order for aircraft and other military hardware, all from America.

You're being conned again.


----------



## Whereisup

Indofred said:


> China trades its way through the world; America invades.
> This whole thing is down to American arms manufacturers trying to create a new cold war in order to increase arms sales.
> Japan has just made a large order for aircraft and other military hardware, all from America.
> 
> You're being conned again.



Of course, somebody is being conned. Even more, weapons manufacturers push for the production of as many high tech weapons, smart bombs, drones, etc. as possible, but those are so expensive that the military can order only a modest number of them. One thing I have noticed the last couple of decades is that the United States will attack, and then the stockpiles of high tech weapons are exhausted. Then, the US pulls back until the stockpiles are built up again. The United States then attacks elsewhere and uses up all the high tech weapons again. Then, it pauses again until stockpiles are again built up, and so forth. In a war with the China alliance, which includes a number of other nations, we would quickly run out of high tech weapons, and have to fall back on ordinary fighting with troops. But with a population four times as large as America's China alone could field far more troops, and then add Russia, China's allies in the Middle East, etc.

Everyone needs to notice China stories more carefully. For example, last year, the Chinese government said that it could quickly destroy all but one of US military bases near China. That wasn't just a trade comment. China very recently has been holding joint military exercises with India.  Then, just recently, China told the world that certain air spaces extending some distance from China can only be entered with China's permission. The US sent military planes through, and tried to send a naval ship, but the Chinese put a Chinese naval ship close enough to collide, and the United States backed down.

Then, in things like the invasion of Tibet, China has used its military.

Remember that nations can get into a war by mistake. Remember that in World War one, neither side wanted a war, but then the Archduke was assassinated, and one thing led to another until they were in a war neither side had wanted. With America and China poking at one another, something similar could happen.

As I have noted, the only possible solution I see would be for China, the United States, and others, to enter into a partnership to create a civilization many times more advanced than the civilization we have now.

China would prefer an economic war, but would fight militarily.

Jim


----------



## Vikrant

This is more reflective of potential than actual capability at least at this point in time but nevertheless I could not find any thread more suitable than this to post this news. 

Chinese media reports of plans to build a 110,000 ton 'super aircraft carrier' to rival US naval power | News.com.au


----------



## Gracie

Daddy was a very wise man when he was alive. He died when I was 17. It's been 44 years but I still remember like it was yesterday what he said:

"Everyone is so concerned about that country, this country, the other country but nobody is looking at the Chinese. They are the ones that will spell our doom".

I think Dad was right.


----------



## Indofred

China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.

The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.


China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear.

OP's bit about the moon is a bit of a stretch. China has a nascent space program which is ridiculously far from any kind of lunar exploitation. The strategic challenges China is likely to present in the future is far more local, specifically the East Pacific which is quickly coalescing around the US.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear..
Click to expand...


PUERTO RICO	1950	Command operation	Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA	1951-53 (-?)	Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats	U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN	1953	Command Operation	CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
GUATEMALA	1954	Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat	CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
VIETNAM	l960-75	Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats	Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA	l961	Command operation	CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
IRAQ	1963	Command operation	CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
INDONESIA	l965	Command operation	Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	1965-66	Troops, bombing	Army & Marines land during election campaign.
DETROIT	l967	Troops	Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
(Sorry, I shouldn't have put that one in because your army was only killing Americans, not foreigners)
CAMBODIA	l969-75	Bombing, troops, naval	Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN	l970	Command operation	U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS	l971-73	Command operation, bombing	U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
CHILE	1973	Command operation	CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
NICARAGUA	l981-90	Command operation, naval	CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON	l982-84	Naval, bombing, troops	Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA	l983-84	Troops, bombing	Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN	l987-88	Naval, bombing	US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
PHILIPPINES	1989	Jets	Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA	1989 (-?)	Troops, bombing	Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
HAITI	1994	Troops, naval	Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
SUDAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
(What, 9/11 was the reason to attack Afghanistan?)
IRAQ	1998	Bombing, Missiles	Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN	2001-?	Troops, bombing, missiles	Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN	2002	Missiles	Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
COLOMBIA	2003-?	Troops	US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ	2003-?	Troops, naval, bombing, missiles	Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
HAITI	2004-05	Troops, naval  	Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN	2005-?	Missiles, bombing, covert operation	CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA	2006-?	Missiles, naval, troops, command operation	Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA	2008	Troops	Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN	2009-?	Missiles, command operation	Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels

*Yep, you're right - or not.*


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PUERTO RICO	1950	Command operation	Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
> KOREA	1951-53 (-?)	Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats	U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
> IRAN	1953	Command Operation	CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
> GUATEMALA	1954	Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat	CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
> VIETNAM	l960-75	Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats	Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
> CUBA	l961	Command operation	CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
> IRAQ	1963	Command operation	CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
> INDONESIA	l965	Command operation	Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
> DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	1965-66	Troops, bombing	Army & Marines land during election campaign.
> DETROIT	l967	Troops	Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
> (Sorry, I shouldn't have put that one in because your army was only killing Americans, not foreigners)
> CAMBODIA	l969-75	Bombing, troops, naval	Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
> OMAN	l970	Command operation	U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
> LAOS	l971-73	Command operation, bombing	U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
> CHILE	1973	Command operation	CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
> NICARAGUA	l981-90	Command operation, naval	CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
> LEBANON	l982-84	Naval, bombing, troops	Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
> GRENADA	l983-84	Troops, bombing	Invasion four years after revolution.
> IRAN	l987-88	Naval, bombing	US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
> PHILIPPINES	1989	Jets	Air cover provided for government against coup.
> PANAMA	1989 (-?)	Troops, bombing	Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
> HAITI	1994	Troops, naval	Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
> SUDAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
> AFGHANISTAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
> (What, 9/11 was the reason to attack Afghanistan?)
> IRAQ	1998	Bombing, Missiles	Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
> AFGHANISTAN	2001-?	Troops, bombing, missiles	Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
> YEMEN	2002	Missiles	Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
> COLOMBIA	2003-?	Troops	US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
> IRAQ	2003-?	Troops, naval, bombing, missiles	Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
> HAITI	2004-05	Troops, naval  	Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
> PAKISTAN	2005-?	Missiles, bombing, covert operation	CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
> SOMALIA	2006-?	Missiles, naval, troops, command operation	Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
> SYRIA	2008	Troops	Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
> YEMEN	2009-?	Missiles, command operation	Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
> 
> *Yep, you're right - or not.*
Click to expand...

The occupation and incorporation of Tibet would be tantamount to the US occupying and incorporating Canada. Did you know that an estimated 1 million Tibetans perished and 6000 monasteries were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward?Millions more died in China proper through outright murder, famine and suicide. All this at the hands of self-righteous bastards of which I''m sure you would love to emulate.

Spare me that shit about the peace-loving Chinese and the war-mongering Americans.


----------



## Sunni Man

The Chinese have always been a very racist and xenophobic people.

Who see themselves as a superior race with a superior culture.

In essence, the Chinese are the nazi fascists of the future.

And are hell bent on someday ruling the entire earth from their world capitol in Beijing.    ....


----------



## Whereisup

Vikrant said:


> This is more reflective of potential than actual capability at least at this point in time but nevertheless I could not find any thread more suitable than this to post this news.
> 
> Chinese media reports of plans to build a 110,000 ton 'super aircraft carrier' to rival US naval power | News.com.au



China was so recently a poor nation that I have trouble getting my head around the fact that China is now very capable. However, that is what the facts indicate. The partnership between China and the International corporations has produced a growth rate of the Chinese economy of almost ten percent per year for several decades, so now, China has the second largest economy in the world, after the United States, and should soon have the largest economy in the world. The United States was able to build air craft carriers when the American economy was substantially smaller than it is now, so China has the financial ability to build large aircraft carriers.

In a second area, a few years ago, China was graduating about six million students per year from her colleges and universities, substantially more college graduates per year than the United States. So China has no lack of expertise. 

Jim


----------



## Whereisup

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear.
> 
> OP's bit about the moon is a bit of a stretch. China has a nascent space program which is ridiculously far from any kind of lunar exploitation. The strategic challenges China is likely to present in the future is far more local, specifically the East Pacific which is quickly coalescing around the US.
Click to expand...


There have been a number of small military actions by China. China has fought India on the border. China had a border military action against Vietnam after the Vietnamese war ended. China has been giving nuclear technology help to Iran. China has fought internal Muslims. China has fought in small ways with Taiwan. China has in the last couple of years claimed the South China sea areas which would belong to other nations if the sea was divided most equitably, including militarily seizing some of the small islands. Then there is the current military claims and positioning of China and the US near some Japanese islands further north.

Whether or not China moves to take over the moon is mainly a matter of whether or not China wants to spend the money. China has its own economy to draw upon, plus more than two trillion American dollars she holds, and other foreign holdings.

China is able to move very quickly in the technology area. Remember that even when China was poor, she developed nuclear weapons so quickly that many people were shocked. China has already put a person into an orbit around earth, which means that for all practical purposes, the technology is almost there. In addition, sending a heavy moon rover to the moon is another indication that Chinese space technology is now almost up to the level of American technology, or might perhaps even be equal to US space technology. One might note that when developing space technology, a lot of America's early rockets exploded. China hasn't had that problem of many failures.

Note also that costs are lower in China than in the United States, so the same amount of military spending produces much more than the U.S. can manage. So even though China's military budget is lower than the US, China still has a large army, etc.

Jim


----------



## Vikrant

^ Rock on brother!


----------



## Meathead

Whereisup said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear.
> 
> OP's bit about the moon is a bit of a stretch. China has a nascent space program which is ridiculously far from any kind of lunar exploitation. The strategic challenges China is likely to present in the future is far more local, specifically the East Pacific which is quickly coalescing around the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been a number of small military actions by China. China has fought India on the border. China had a border military action against Vietnam after the Vietnamese war ended. China has been giving nuclear technology help to Iran. China has fought internal Muslims. China has fought in small ways with Taiwan. China has in the last couple of years claimed the South China sea areas which would belong to other nations if the sea was divided most equitably, including militarily seizing some of the small islands. Then there is the current military claims and positioning of China and the US near some Japanese islands further north.
> 
> Whether or not China moves to take over the moon is mainly a matter of whether or not China wants to spend the money. China has its own economy to draw upon, plus more than two trillion American dollars she holds, and other foreign holdings.
> 
> China is able to move very quickly in the technology area. Remember that even when China was poor, she developed nuclear weapons so quickly that many people were shocked. China has already put a person into an orbit around earth, which means that for all practical purposes, the technology is almost there. In addition, sending a heavy moon rover to the moon is another indication that Chinese space technology is now almost up to the level of American technology, or might perhaps even be equal to US space technology. One might note that when developing space technology, a lot of America's early rockets exploded. China hasn't had that problem of many failures.
> 
> Note also that costs are lower in China than in the United States, so the same amount of military spending produces much more than the U.S. can manage. So even though China's military budget is lower than the US, China still has a large army, etc.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

Obviously, China, if it should choose, could pose a serious threat to it's neighbors in relatively short order. Still, they do not possess a blue-water of any substance so we are talking about decades before the can project military power beyond their immediate borders.  Meanwhile, others, especially Japan, are not oblivious to the looming potential and have started  contingency plans to protect their interests.


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> Remember that even when China was poor, she developed nuclear weapons so quickly that many people were shocked.





Not so shocked. The Soviets gave them the technology.


----------



## Whereisup

Meathead said:


> Whereisup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of .[/QUO now almost up to the level of American technology, or might perhaps even be equal to US space technology. One might note that when developing space technology,
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, China, if it should choose, could pose a serious threat to it's neighbors in relatively short order. Still, they do not possess a blue-water of any substance so we are talking about decades before the can project military power beyond their immediate borders.  Meanwhile, others, especially Japan, are not oblivious to the looming potential and have started  contingency plans to protect their interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are way underestimating China, which could be disastrous. China's rapid economic growth rate means that she should become the world's largest economy in just a few years. China has been almost doubling her research funding each years for some time, while, in terms of real dollars, American research funding has been flat for more than a decade. China holds enough American dollars and American debt to bring down the American economy at any time.
> 
> Personally, I'm not really all that concerned. I love Chinese culture, and it wouldn't be all that terrible if China did take over the United States. Also, in terms of personality, I am more like a Chinese person than like a current media credit card indebted jump up and down American.
> 
> Yet, I like my fellow Americans and think they probably want to be free, so I want that for them. Also, humanity will be more creative and successful if there is a diversity of cultures, rather than just a world Chinese culture.
> 
> So I am suggesting a way for America to save itself, but if I'm not successful, it will still be OK, though not as good as if we had both a strong Chinese culture and a strong American culture.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> China holds enough American dollars and American debt to bring down the American economy at any time.




I don't think you understand much about economics, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> I love Chinese culture, and it wouldn't be all that terrible if China did take over the United States.





You don't know what you're saying.


----------



## Indeependent

Every Conservative on every forum on earth will claim that every US CEO that helped to make China a powerhouse is a financial wizard, spending every momrnt of their obviously brilliant lives sweating on how they can make a profit for their investors.
Every Conservative will then sweat over how the most horrible Totalitarian nation in history ever became powerful enough to become a threat to our nation of LIBERTY.
You want your LIBERTY, you got it.
Let the CEOs and their short-sighted investors pay for any conflicts with China.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PUERTO RICO	1950	Command operation	Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
> KOREA	1951-53 (-?)	Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats	U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
> IRAN	1953	Command Operation	CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
> GUATEMALA	1954	Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat	CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
> VIETNAM	l960-75	Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats	Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
> CUBA	l961	Command operation	CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
> IRAQ	1963	Command operation	CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
> INDONESIA	l965	Command operation	Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
> DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	1965-66	Troops, bombing	Army & Marines land during election campaign.
> DETROIT	l967	Troops	Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
> (Sorry, I shouldn't have put that one in because your army was only killing Americans, not foreigners)
> CAMBODIA	l969-75	Bombing, troops, naval	Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
> OMAN	l970	Command operation	U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
> LAOS	l971-73	Command operation, bombing	U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
> CHILE	1973	Command operation	CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
> NICARAGUA	l981-90	Command operation, naval	CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
> LEBANON	l982-84	Naval, bombing, troops	Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
> GRENADA	l983-84	Troops, bombing	Invasion four years after revolution.
> IRAN	l987-88	Naval, bombing	US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
> PHILIPPINES	1989	Jets	Air cover provided for government against coup.
> PANAMA	1989 (-?)	Troops, bombing	Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
> HAITI	1994	Troops, naval	Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
> SUDAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
> AFGHANISTAN	1998	Missiles	Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
> (What, 9/11 was the reason to attack Afghanistan?)
> IRAQ	1998	Bombing, Missiles	Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
> AFGHANISTAN	2001-?	Troops, bombing, missiles	Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
> YEMEN	2002	Missiles	Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
> COLOMBIA	2003-?	Troops	US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
> IRAQ	2003-?	Troops, naval, bombing, missiles	Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
> HAITI	2004-05	Troops, naval  	Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
> PAKISTAN	2005-?	Missiles, bombing, covert operation	CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
> SOMALIA	2006-?	Missiles, naval, troops, command operation	Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
> SYRIA	2008	Troops	Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
> YEMEN	2009-?	Missiles, command operation	Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
> 
> *Yep, you're right - or not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The occupation and incorporation of Tibet would be tantamount to the US occupying and incorporating Canada. Did you know that an estimated 1 million Tibetans perished and 6000 monasteries were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward?Millions more died in China proper through outright murder, famine and suicide. All this at the hands of self-righteous bastards of which I''m sure you would love to emulate.
> 
> Spare me that shit about the peace-loving Chinese and the war-mongering Americans.
Click to expand...


I didn't claim China was peace loving, just America is far worse.


----------



## Indofred

Whereisup said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, a country that has invaded one other country since WWII, and spends five times less on its military than America, a country that has invaded lots of other countries and has a massive attack budget as well as military bases all over the world, none of which are there to defend America.
> 
> The aggressor is clear, except to those that don't want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> China incorporated Tibet in 1950 whose people never wished to be part of China. As you say, aggression is clear.
> 
> OP's bit about the moon is a bit of a stretch. China has a nascent space program which is ridiculously far from any kind of lunar exploitation. The strategic challenges China is likely to present in the future is far more local, specifically the East Pacific which is quickly coalescing around the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been a number of small military actions by China. China has fought India on the border. China had a border military action against Vietnam after the Vietnamese war ended. China has been giving nuclear technology help to Iran. China has fought internal Muslims. China has fought in small ways with Taiwan. China has in the last couple of years claimed the South China sea areas which would belong to other nations if the sea was divided most equitably, including militarily seizing some of the small islands. Then there is the current military claims and positioning of China and the US near some Japanese islands further north.
> 
> Whether or not China moves to take over the moon is mainly a matter of whether or not China wants to spend the money. China has its own economy to draw upon, plus more than two trillion American dollars she holds, and other foreign holdings.
> 
> China is able to move very quickly in the technology area. Remember that even when China was poor, she developed nuclear weapons so quickly that many people were shocked. China has already put a person into an orbit around earth, which means that for all practical purposes, the technology is almost there. In addition, sending a heavy moon rover to the moon is another indication that Chinese space technology is now almost up to the level of American technology, or might perhaps even be equal to US space technology. One might note that when developing space technology, a lot of America's early rockets exploded. China hasn't had that problem of many failures.
> 
> Note also that costs are lower in China than in the United States, so the same amount of military spending produces much more than the U.S. can manage. So even though China's military budget is lower than the US, China still has a large army, etc.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...


America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.





You should really study some Chinese history.


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> Whereisup said:
> 
> 
> 
> China holds enough American dollars and American debt to bring down the American economy at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand much about economics, kid.
Click to expand...


For once I agree with you.  China is DEPENDENT on the US for our MARKET.  Without us, they have nowhere to sell their manufactured goods (or at least the majority of them)
Trade war between US and China ?  We'd eat their lunch.  So, you finally said something right.  Nice going, kid.


----------



## Politico

No one is going to war.


----------



## Peterf

I am reading Kissinger's "On China",  Penguin Press, 2011, at the moment.  Excellent.    I commend it to those who seek to understand China.


----------



## Sunni Man

Indofred said:


> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.


After the last few of centuries of English/UK world wide enslavement and brutal colonialism of indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia.

I don't think you should be pointing a finger at someone else.........


----------



## Peterf

protectionist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereisup said:
> 
> 
> 
> China holds enough American dollars and American debt to bring down the American economy at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand much about economics, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For once I agree with you.  China is DEPENDENT on the US for our MARKET.  Without us, they have nowhere to sell their manufactured goods (or at least the majority of them)
> Trade war between US and China ?  We'd eat their lunch.  So, you finally said something right.  Nice going, kid.
Click to expand...


China has to lend the US money so that Americans can afford to buy Chinese products.  China will quite soon abandon these economics of the mad house and rely instead on paying customers and, not least, on its own rapidly expanding domestic market.

"Eat their lunch" - good idea.   A massively indebted country like the US certainly can't afford to buy its own lunch.


----------



## Peterf

The 19th was the British century,  the 20th the American and the 21st will be the Chinese.    Yours was pretty good while it lasted but its over.   Judging by the posts on this board it will be quite a while before all of you realise it though.


----------



## Indofred

Sunni Man said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> After the last few of centuries of English/UK world wide enslavement and brutal colonialism of indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia.
> 
> I don't think you should be pointing a finger at someone else.........
Click to expand...


Please quote the post where I've defended English (and the other, less important, bits of the UK) colonialism.
However wrong the act of colonising a country may be, unlike the American version, we built social structures, communication systems and so on.
Every country the UK took over (and kept the English system after independence) has done far better than it would otherwise have done, India and Malaysia come to mind.
Every country America has attacked or invaded has been destroyed or seriously damaged.
It was wrong to do what the English of the time did but these countries have done rather well from it in the long term.
Perhaps you can name a country America has left in a better condition after invasion than it was before.


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> After the last few of centuries of English/UK world wide enslavement and brutal colonialism of indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia.
> 
> I don't think you should be pointing a finger at someone else.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote the post where I've defended English (and the other, less important, bits of the UK) colonialism.
> However wrong the act of colonising a country may be, unlike the American version, we built social structures, communication systems and so on.
> Every country the UK took over (and kept the English system after independence) has done far better than it would otherwise have done, India and Malaysia come to mind.
> Every country America has attacked or invaded has been destroyed or seriously damaged.
> It was wrong to do what the English of the time did but these countries have done rather well from it in the long term.
> Perhaps you can name a country America has left in a better condition after invasion than it was before.
Click to expand...

Two of the most powerful countries the US ever invaded, Germany and Japan made remarkable comebacks fostered by the US. Both are more affluent and stable than ever before.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should try the same with American history.

IDAHO	1892	Troops	Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
CHICAGO	1894	Troops	Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
IDAHO	1899-1901	Troops	Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
COLORADO	1914	Troops	Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
TEXAS	1915	Troops	Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
WEST VIRGINIA	1920-21	Troops, bombing	Army intervenes against mineworkers.
WASHINGTON DC	1932	Troops	Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
DETROIT	1943	Troops	Army put down Black rebellion.
DETROIT	l967	Troops	Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES	l968	Troops	After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
SOUTH DAKOTA	l973	Command operation	Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

That misses a few out, including using fully armed military police to suppress an internal American political group.







It's a little hard to complain about China when America has done as bad or worse.


----------



## Indofred

I almost forgot about troops being used to shoot unarmed students in Ohio. If I recall, the U.S. army murdered 4 or 5 collage students because they held a political opinion, not a gun.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should try the same with American history.
Click to expand...



I have. YOU obviously don't know much of Chinese history if you think there is any comparison. Is everything you ever say just some version of your anti-American bullshit? There's nothing else in that rotten melon of yours?


----------



## Sunni Man

I once had lunch with a commodities trader who was born in China.

He had immigrated from China a decade before and had became an American citizen.

We discussed Asian trade policies and geopolitics in general; and specifically the topic of U.S./China trade and military concerns.

Towards the end of the conversation, he looked me and said in a voice of apprehension; "Heaven help us if the Chinese ever become a global super power and dominate America".

His words have always haunted me to this day.    ......


----------



## Whereisup

protectionist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereisup said:
> 
> 
> 
> China holds enough American dollars and American debt to bring down the American economy at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand much about economics, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For once I agree with you.  China is DEPENDENT on the US for our MARKET.  Without us, they have nowhere to sell their manufactured goods (or at least the majority of them)
> Trade war between US and China ?  We'd eat their lunch.  So, you finally said something right.  Nice going, kid.
Click to expand...


A couple of years ago, the Chinese government said that it could now easily do without the American market, and I think the Chinese government was right.

China now has all the factories and skilled workers in place. All she needs to do now is to make arrangements for Chinese in China to begin buying the products that are being manufactured in China. China can just open up its internal markets, and then it doesn't need the American market. 

The people who keep saying China is dependent on American markets were correct even 10 years ago, but they are no longer correct.

Things are changing so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with what is happening.

On the other matter, people who understand the economics of the American economy don't understand the economics of some other economies, unless they have made a special study of it. 

Consider what an economy is like which operates with a MIXTURE of private corporations and government economic activities.

Jim


----------



## Moonglow

China has wanted Formosa back for many years, but fears the US and it's military power.


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> A couple of years ago, the Chinese government said that it could now easily do without the American market, and I think the Chinese government was right.




They were bluffing and you are ignorant and gullible.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should try the same with American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. YOU obviously don't know much of Chinese history if you think there is any comparison. Is everything you ever say just some version of your anti-American bullshit? There's nothing else in that rotten melon of yours?
Click to expand...


Since the Chinese communist party was really nothing until post WWII, we can't really look at much history until '45.
China is hardly free from guilt in domestic politics.
Famine caused by lousy government policy and murdering its own civilians are just two of many crimes they're guilty off.
However, I'n neither defending China nor hating America; simply pointing out both have managed their share of evil acts so neither has the right to dictate to the other.

In this case, America is having a go at Chinese expansionism but a brief look at history since 1945 shows America has a far worse record than China, so can hardly complain until it sorts itself out.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should try the same with American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. YOU obviously don't know much of Chinese history if you think there is any comparison. Is everything you ever say just some version of your anti-American bullshit? There's nothing else in that rotten melon of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Chinese communist party was really nothing until post WWII, we can't really look at much history until '45.
Click to expand...



Oh? China didn't exist until the communists took over?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> a brief look at history since 1945 shows America has a far worse record than China....





No we don't.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the last few of centuries of English/UK world wide enslavement and brutal colonialism of indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia.
> 
> I don't think you should be pointing a finger at someone else.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote the post where I've defended English (and the other, less important, bits of the UK) colonialism.
> However wrong the act of colonising a country may be, unlike the American version, we built social structures, communication systems and so on.
> Every country the UK took over (and kept the English system after independence) has done far better than it would otherwise have done, India and Malaysia come to mind.
> Every country America has attacked or invaded has been destroyed or seriously damaged.
> It was wrong to do what the English of the time did but these countries have done rather well from it in the long term.
> Perhaps you can name a country America has left in a better condition after invasion than it was before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of the most powerful countries the US ever invaded, Germany and Japan made remarkable comebacks fostered by the US. Both are more affluent and stable than ever before.
Click to expand...


America was a tad late for the European war, a common trait.
However, the invasion of Germany was a joint venture, not American.


----------



## Peterf

Quotation from 1972:

"Well you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of the (Chinese) mainland.  Good God  .... There'd be no power in the world that could even - I, mean, you put 800 hundred million Chinese to work under a decent system  ....  and they will be the leaders of the world"      Richard Nixon

Now 41 years later there are 1361 million Chinese and they have something approaching a 'decent' government, or, at least one that is effective.

Imo and, I expect, in the eyes of history Nixon was, in foreign policy terms, one of the greatest US presidents.   His opening of relations with China weakened the Soviet Union,  which had at the time over a million troops along the Chinese border.    Nixon laid the foundations for victory in the Cold War


----------



## Vikrant

Peterf said:


> Quotation from 1972:
> 
> "Well you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of the (Chinese) mainland.  Good God  .... There'd be no power in the world that could even - I, mean, you put 800 hundred million Chinese to work under a decent system  ....  and they will be the leaders of the world"      Richard Nixon
> 
> Now 41 years later there are 1361 million Chinese and they have something approaching a 'decent' government, or, at least one that is effective.
> 
> Imo and, I expect, in the eyes of history Nixon was, in foreign policy terms, one of the greatest US presidents.   His opening of relations with China weakened the Soviet Union,  which had at the time over a million troops along the Chinese border.    Nixon laid the foundations for victory in the Cold War



... and he laid the foundation for another cold war by propping up China.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. YOU obviously don't know much of Chinese history if you think there is any comparison. Is everything you ever say just some version of your anti-American bullshit? There's nothing else in that rotten melon of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Chinese communist party was really nothing until post WWII, we can't really look at much history until '45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? China didn't exist until the communists took over?
Click to expand...


It did but was not controlled by the communists.
Their political system and official policies changed totally.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> a brief look at history since 1945 shows America has a far worse record than China....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.
Click to expand...


How about using American military to kill American civilians?


----------



## Peterf

Vikrant said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quotation from 1972:
> 
> "Well you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of the (Chinese) mainland.  Good God  .... There'd be no power in the world that could even - I, mean, you put 800 hundred million Chinese to work under a decent system  ....  and they will be the leaders of the world"      Richard Nixon
> 
> Now 41 years later there are 1361 million Chinese and they have something approaching a 'decent' government, or, at least one that is effective.
> 
> Imo and, I expect, in the eyes of history Nixon was, in foreign policy terms, one of the greatest US presidents.   His opening of relations with China weakened the Soviet Union,  which had at the time over a million troops along the Chinese border.    Nixon laid the foundations for victory in the Cold War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and he laid the foundation for another cold war by propping up China.
Click to expand...


I don't think there has been a cold war between the US and China , do you?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Chinese communist party was really nothing until post WWII, we can't really look at much history until '45.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? China didn't exist until the communists took over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did but was not controlled by the communists.
> Their political system and official policies changed totally.
Click to expand...



Oh, so should we only 'count' Chinese history after Mao died? After Deng took power? Post 1989? Just how mobile are your goalposts?


----------



## Unkotare

Peterf said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quotation from 1972:
> 
> "Well you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of the (Chinese) mainland.  Good God  .... There'd be no power in the world that could even - I, mean, you put 800 hundred million Chinese to work under a decent system  ....  and they will be the leaders of the world"      Richard Nixon
> 
> Now 41 years later there are 1361 million Chinese and they have something approaching a 'decent' government, or, at least one that is effective.
> 
> Imo and, I expect, in the eyes of history Nixon was, in foreign policy terms, one of the greatest US presidents.   His opening of relations with China weakened the Soviet Union,  which had at the time over a million troops along the Chinese border.    Nixon laid the foundations for victory in the Cold War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and he laid the foundation for another cold war by propping up China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there has been a cold war between the US and China , do you?
Click to expand...



You could argue that there has been one in the Korean Peninsula for decades.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> a brief look at history since 1945 shows America has a far worse record than China....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about using American military to kill American civilians?
Click to expand...



Compared to China? Don't be absurd.


----------



## Whereisup

Unkotare said:


> Whereisup said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of years ago, the Chinese government said that it could now easily do without the American market, and I think the Chinese government was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were bluffing and you are ignorant and gullible.
Click to expand...


You are hoping that the Chinese government was bluffing, but this is such a serious situation that you need to be sure.

I will say that logically, China could easily replace the American market with their internal market. Remember that the Chinese government can do things in the economy that the American government isn't allowed to do. 

Don't take that wrong, I don't think the American government should have as much internal power as the Chinese government. I am only talking about facts on the ground. Then, it is my responsibility to try to think up ways that the United States could still be OK, even keeping a government with less power.

Interestingly, for years, China encouraged her citizens to avoid buying products and services and save, which the Chinese public did. Now, the Chinese government has a major campaign going to get the Chinese public to buy more products and services, and to not save as much.

OK: given that China could switch over to an internal market, why do you think the Chinese government was bluffing.

Jim


----------



## Whereisup

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about using American military to kill American civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to China? Don't be absurd.
Click to expand...


You are right, but you also could quote figures on the many millions of Chinese who were killed after the Chinese Communist Party took power.

Of course, the past is past. The important thing now is to solve the problems of the future.

Jim


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> I will say that logically, China could easily replace the American market with their internal market.




No they can't. Not even close. Not for a decade at least.


----------



## Unkotare

Whereisup said:


> Then, it is my responsibility to try to think up ways that the United States could still be OK, even keeping a government with less power.




Your responsibility? Who asked you, kid? Your only responsibility now is to complete your education so you don't make such a fool of yourself again in the future.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? China didn't exist until the communists took over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did but was not controlled by the communists.
> Their political system and official policies changed totally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so should we only 'count' Chinese history after Mao died? After Deng took power? Post 1989? Just how mobile are your goalposts?
Click to expand...


I tend to start with Mao.
Pre Mao, their system was entirely different.
To consider imperialist china would be very much like taking examples from king George's America and saying modern America is guilty of any offences of that time.

I believe you're being silly because you know you can't win the argument.
America has far more blood guilt than China as far as expansionist policy and starting wars is concerned.

Prove me wrong by posting a list of wars started by China and compare that to the list I posted for America.
If the list is longer, and the numbers dead, greater, I'll be happy to admit defeat on this point.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Prove me wrong by posting a list of wars started by China and compare that to the list I posted for America.
> If the list is longer, and the numbers dead, greater, I'll be happy to admit defeat on this point.





Your initial claim was about "expansion," in which case the claim is false. Trying to shift the focus to "started by" opens the door to the question as to who "started" what and even what constitutes "started" in the first place which, given your abiding anti-Americanism, will undoubtedly be naught but fruitless disputation.


----------



## Vikrant

Us wars starting with World War II:

World War II was started by Hitler
Korean war was started by Chinese and their Korean supporters who came to be known as N Koreans
Vietnam war was an unnecessary mess
Gulf War I was started by Saddam
Gulf War II was an unnecessary mess
Afghanistan war started by Al Queda attacking the US


----------



## Vikrant

Chinese Wars:

- China invaded and occupied Tibet for no reason. In the process killed well over million Tibetans
- China attacked India in 1962 unprovoked. Then China attacked India again in 1967
- China attacked Soviet Union. Both fought tank battles
- China captured some Spratley islands from Vietnam when Vietnam was busy fighting the US 
- China attacked Vietnam unprovoked which resulted in full scale war with Vietnam and bloody nose for PLA


----------



## Vikrant

Peterf said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quotation from 1972:
> 
> "Well you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of the (Chinese) mainland.  Good God  .... There'd be no power in the world that could even - I, mean, you put 800 hundred million Chinese to work under a decent system  ....  and they will be the leaders of the world"      Richard Nixon
> 
> Now 41 years later there are 1361 million Chinese and they have something approaching a 'decent' government, or, at least one that is effective.
> 
> Imo and, I expect, in the eyes of history Nixon was, in foreign policy terms, one of the greatest US presidents.   His opening of relations with China weakened the Soviet Union,  which had at the time over a million troops along the Chinese border.    Nixon laid the foundations for victory in the Cold War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and he laid the foundation for another cold war by propping up China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there has been a cold war between the US and China , do you?
Click to expand...


What do you think will happen as China gets stronger and stronger? Propping up China was a big blunder.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong by posting a list of wars started by China and compare that to the list I posted for America.
> If the list is longer, and the numbers dead, greater, I'll be happy to admit defeat on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial claim was about "expansion," in which case the claim is false. Trying to shift the focus to "started by" opens the door to the question as to who "started" what and even what constitutes "started" in the first place which, given your abiding anti-Americanism, will undoubtedly be naught but fruitless disputation.
Click to expand...


So compare American against Chinese military bases outside their own country and so who tends to display expansionist traits.
Why do I have to be anti American for pointing out your evil history?


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about using American military to kill American civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to China? Don't be absurd.
Click to expand...


Do you condemn murder of unarmed American civilians by the American military?


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about using American military to kill American civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to China? Don't be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you condemn murder of unarmed American civilians by the American military?
Click to expand...

You are as ignorant as your question.

However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to China? Don't be absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you condemn murder of unarmed American civilians by the American military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are as ignorant as your question.
> 
> However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.
Click to expand...


So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.


----------



## Peterf

Moonglow said:


> China has wanted Formosa back for many years, but fears the US and it's military power.



Deng said decades ago that China was in no hurry to get back Taiwan.    They could do without millions of anti-Communist trouble makers.    Maybe in a hundred years they would recover the island by force, he said.

I think the Chinese just think a war over Taiwan is not worth the trouble or the expense.


----------



## Peterf

Indofred said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you condemn murder of unarmed American civilians by the American military?
> 
> 
> 
> You are as ignorant as your question.
> 
> However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
> However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.
Click to expand...


Very good point.   I have long been of the opinion that in WWII in Europe every GI should have been accompanied by a lawyer so that legal proceedings could be commenced against any German soldier that the GI might see in his sights.

This due process would, have course, resulted in the deaths of a few million lawyers but I think that would have a price worth paying.


----------



## Meathead

Peterf said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as ignorant as your question.
> 
> However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
> However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good point.   I have long been of the opinion that in WWII in Europe every GI should have been accompanied by a lawyer so that legal proceedings could be commenced against any German soldier that the GI might see in his sights.
> 
> This due process would, have course, resulted in the deaths of a few million lawyers but I think that would have a price worth paying.
Click to expand...


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you condemn murder of unarmed American civilians by the American military?
> 
> 
> 
> You are as ignorant as your question.
> 
> However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
> However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.
Click to expand...

Don't know and can't be bothered with silly lists, but I would draw the line for para-judicial execution where America could exercise jurisdiction. Osama is an excellent example, or it you insist on a US citizen then that idiot they killed in Yemen.

I would never accept that by being a US citizen you could conspire to kill Americans and freely do so because a sheriff cannot be sent to make an arrest. That's nuts.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as ignorant as your question.
> 
> However, if some asshole goes overseas, joins al-Queda and conspires to kill others, then no, I don't condemn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
> However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know and can't be bothered with silly lists, but I would draw the line for para-judicial execution where America could exercise jurisdiction. Osama is an excellent example, or it you insist on a US citizen then that idiot they killed in Yemen.
> 
> I would never accept that by being a US citizen you could conspire to kill Americans and freely do so because a sheriff cannot be sent to make an arrest. That's nuts.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.

Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, execution without trial is no problem; where do you draw the line and require a trial, due process, lawyers and so on?
> However, I was actually looking at my previous list, none were terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know and can't be bothered with silly lists, but I would draw the line for para-judicial execution where America could exercise jurisdiction. Osama is an excellent example, or it you insist on a US citizen then that idiot they killed in Yemen.
> 
> I would never accept that by being a US citizen you could conspire to kill Americans and freely do so because a sheriff cannot be sent to make an arrest. That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.
> 
> Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know and can't be bothered with silly lists, but I would draw the line for para-judicial execution where America could exercise jurisdiction. Osama is an excellent example, or it you insist on a US citizen then that idiot they killed in Yemen.
> 
> I would never accept that by being a US citizen you could conspire to kill Americans and freely do so because a sheriff cannot be sent to make an arrest. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.
> 
> Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the American troops didn't open fire on unarmed students?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has used its military to mass murder its own population than China has.
> You've mass murdered your own people for being the wrong skin colour and others for being on strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong by posting a list of wars started by China and compare that to the list I posted for America.
> If the list is longer, and the numbers dead, greater, I'll be happy to admit defeat on this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial claim was about "expansion," in which case the claim is false. Trying to shift the focus to "started by" opens the door to the question as to who "started" what and even what constitutes "started" in the first place which, given your abiding anti-Americanism, will undoubtedly be naught but fruitless disputation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So compare American against Chinese military bases outside their own country and so who tends to display expansionist traits.
Click to expand...



Expansionism means something. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your preconceived conclusion. Apples and oranges, little man.


----------



## Unkotare

Peterf said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> China has wanted Formosa back for many years, but fears the US and it's military power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deng said decades ago that China was in no hurry to get back Taiwan.    They could do without millions of anti-Communist trouble makers.    Maybe in a hundred years they would recover the island by force, he said.
> 
> I think the Chinese just think a war over Taiwan is not worth the trouble or the expense.
Click to expand...



They're right, and at present they couldn't do it anyway.


----------



## Meathead

Indofred said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.
> 
> Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the American troops didn't open fire on unarmed students?
Click to expand...

I am saying your grasp of English is weak or you're a disingenuous self-righteous wanker. As they are not mutually exclusive, both are indeed possible.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should really study some Chinese history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial claim was about "expansion," in which case the claim is false. Trying to shift the focus to "started by" opens the door to the question as to who "started" what and even what constitutes "started" in the first place which, given your abiding anti-Americanism, will undoubtedly be naught but fruitless disputation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So compare American against Chinese military bases outside their own country and so who tends to display expansionist traits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Expansionism means something. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your preconceived conclusion. Apples and oranges, little man.
Click to expand...




> ex·pan·sion·ism
> ik&#712;spanSH&#601;&#716;niz&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the policy of territorial or economic expansion.
> "the post-colonial critique of Western expansionism"



America does the former by use of military power; China the latter by trade.
Which one is worse?


----------



## Indofred

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the American troops didn't open fire on unarmed students?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying your grasp of English is weak or you're a disingenuous self-righteous wanker. As they are not mutually exclusive, both are indeed possible.
Click to expand...


I see absolutely no condemnation, only deflection in an attempt to avoid answering.

IDAHO	1892	Troops	Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
CHICAGO	1894	Troops	Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
IDAHO	1899-1901	Troops	Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
WASHINGTON DC	1932	Troops	Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
DETROIT	l967	Troops	Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES	l968	Troops	After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
LOS ANGELES	1992	Troops	Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOUTH DAKOTA	l973	Command operation	Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

And, just to make the point...
4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops

The troops, who were used when police should have been there, opened fire and killed several people.
They later used the excuse of a sniper who, according to the reporter, didn't exist.
He was there and heard no gunshots until the troops murdered the students.

Now, there it is, clear, unambiguous and no mention of terrorists, just American civilians.

Please answer.

*Is using troops against your own civilian population acceptable?*


----------



## Peterf

Meathead said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know and can't be bothered with silly lists, but I would draw the line for para-judicial execution where America could exercise jurisdiction. Osama is an excellent example, or it you insist on a US citizen then that idiot they killed in Yemen.
> 
> I would never accept that by being a US citizen you could conspire to kill Americans and freely do so because a sheriff cannot be sent to make an arrest. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.
> 
> Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
Click to expand...


It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.

(It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).


----------



## Indofred

Peterf said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I brought up that case but I did make note of the American military being used to kill unarmed striking American miners and unarmed American collage students.
> 
> Will posters condemn these misuses of military force?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
Click to expand...


I see sarcasm but no condemnation.
American troops murdered unarmed American civilians but you say nothing.


----------



## Vikrant

Indofred said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see sarcasm but no condemnation.
> American troops murdered unarmed American civilians but you say nothing.
Click to expand...


I cannot speak for anyone else but as far as I am concerned, I never enjoy the loss of life even that of a sworn enemy. The death is always regrettable.


----------



## hunarcy

Peterf said:


> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).



I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State.  The US Government had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> So compare American against Chinese military bases outside their own country and so who tends to display expansionist traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expansionism means something. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your preconceived conclusion. Apples and oranges, little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ex·pan·sion·ism
> ik&#712;spanSH&#601;&#716;niz&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the policy of territorial or economic expansion.
> "the post-colonial critique of Western expansionism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America does the former by use of military power
Click to expand...



No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.


----------



## Peterf

Indofred said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Kent State then you may as well read up on the events and the meaning of a phrases like "being used to kill" before spewing stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see sarcasm but no condemnation.
> American troops murdered unarmed American civilians but you say nothing.
Click to expand...


The 'troops' were poorly trained and led National Guardsmen who panicked and fired off a total of 67 rounds.    Kent State was not  a planned massacre but a tragic cock-up.

The decision to deploy the NG in such circumstances can certainly be condemned -  if that would make you happy.


----------



## Peterf

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Expansionism means something. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your preconceived conclusion. Apples and oranges, little man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ex·pan·sion·ism
> ik&#712;spanSH&#601;&#716;niz&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the policy of territorial or economic expansion.
> "the post-colonial critique of Western expansionism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America does the former by use of military power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
Click to expand...



Correct.   It must be at least a hundred years since the territory of the USA expanded by as much as one square yard.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Expansionism means something. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your preconceived conclusion. Apples and oranges, little man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ex·pan·sion·ism
> ik&#712;spanSH&#601;&#716;niz&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the policy of territorial or economic expansion.
> "the post-colonial critique of Western expansionism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America does the former by use of military power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
Click to expand...


I'm so sorry the truth is anti American.
Perhaps you can rewrite history so there's nothing anti American in it.


----------



## Indofred

hunarcy said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State.  The US Government had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


So, what you're saying is, if local government kills unarmed civilians, it isn't the same as national government killing unarmed civilians.
Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Indofred

Peterf said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see sarcasm but no condemnation.
> American troops murdered unarmed American civilians but you say nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'troops' were poorly trained and led National Guardsmen who panicked and fired off a total of 67 rounds.    Kent State was not  a planned massacre but a tragic cock-up.
> 
> The decision to deploy the NG in such circumstances can certainly be condemned -  if that would make you happy.
Click to expand...


More excuses.
Poorly trained, fully armed troops were used against unarmed civilians so it was a mistake.
However, in your defence and apart from your piss poor excuse, you did manage to admit American troops were used against unarmed civilians and those troops murdered the students.
Now you've finally admitted it, how can you say China is worse than America when both have done the same things?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America does the former by use of military power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry the truth is anti American.
Click to expand...



It's not, but you are.


----------



## Indofred

Peterf said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> America does the former by use of military power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.   It must be at least a hundred years since the territory of the USA expanded by as much as one square yard.
Click to expand...


I believe, if memory serves, I was attacked for saying the Chinese system didn't really much count, pre revolution.
You use time as an excuse.

Now for expansion of territory - exactly how many military bases have you built in the last 100 years that are outside actual American territory, even including American occupied Hawaii?

US Military Expansion and Intervention

All are considered sovereign American territory and they cover a lot more than one square yard.
Over 700 hundred bases in foreign countries suggest a lot of expansionism.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry the truth is anti American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are.
Click to expand...


I simply use historical facts to show, post 1945 America has a far worse record than China.
If the truth is Anti American, I'm guilty.
If you don't accept history and try to learn from it, you're very silly.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. Look, that tiny little thing of yours isn't going to get any bigger by your posting this endless anti-American drivel. Do whatever small thing you can with whatever small skills you have to make the small place in which you live a little bit better and leave it at that. You can't and won't do anything more regardless of how much you indulge your inferiority complex here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.   It must be at least a hundred years since the territory of the USA expanded by as much as one square yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe, if memory serves, I was attacked for saying the Chinese system didn't really much count, pre revolution.
> You use time as an excuse.
> 
> Now for expansion of territory - exactly how many military bases have you built in the last 100 years that are outside actual American territory, even including American occupied Hawaii?
> 
> US Military Expansion and Intervention
> 
> All are considered sovereign American territory and they cover a lot more than one square yard.
> Over 700 hundred bases in foreign countries suggest a lot of expansionism.
Click to expand...





Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry the truth is anti American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I simply use historical facts to show, post 1945 America has a far worse record than China.
Click to expand...



All you are showing is your ignorance and prejudice. If this is all there is to the act, we've seen it. You can move on now.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply use historical facts to show, post 1945 America has a far worse record than China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All you are showing is your ignorance and prejudice. If this is all there is to the act, we've seen it. You can move on now.
Click to expand...


No, I'm quoting undisputed historical facts.
I'm sorry history is anti American.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.   It must be at least a hundred years since the territory of the USA expanded by as much as one square yard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe, if memory serves, I was attacked for saying the Chinese system didn't really much count, pre revolution.
> You use time as an excuse.
> 
> Now for expansion of territory - exactly how many military bases have you built in the last 100 years that are outside actual American territory, even including American occupied Hawaii?
> 
> US Military Expansion and Intervention
> 
> All are considered sovereign American territory and they cover a lot more than one square yard.
> Over 700 hundred bases in foreign countries suggest a lot of expansionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.
Click to expand...


https://www.google.com/search?q=ame...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.

How is that not an occupied territory?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply use historical facts to show, post 1945 America has a far worse record than China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you are showing is your ignorance and prejudice. If this is all there is to the act, we've seen it. You can move on now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm quoting undisputed historical facts.
Click to expand...



No, you are pointlessly repeating anti-American and irrational conclusions, you impotent little nobody.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe, if memory serves, I was attacked for saying the Chinese system didn't really much count, pre revolution.
> You use time as an excuse.
> 
> Now for expansion of territory - exactly how many military bases have you built in the last 100 years that are outside actual American territory, even including American occupied Hawaii?
> 
> 
> 
> All are considered sovereign American territory and they cover a lot more than one square yard.
> Over 700 hundred bases in foreign countries suggest a lot of expansionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
> You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.
> 
> How is that not an occupied territory?
Click to expand...




The vast majority of Hawaiians, including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii, voted for statehood, you ignorant little bug.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
> You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.
> 
> How is that not an occupied territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of Hawaiians, including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii, voted for statehood, you ignorant little bug.
Click to expand...


Those vast majority were American immigrants who moved there after the invasion.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are showing is your ignorance and prejudice. If this is all there is to the act, we've seen it. You can move on now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm quoting undisputed historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are pointlessly repeating anti-American and irrational conclusions, you impotent little nobody.
Click to expand...


What's anti America about historical facts?
None of these events are in dispute but you seem to think history is anti American if it involves bad things done by Americans.

Add to this, your insults aimed at me for bringing up American history and you display yourself as a fool.
Are you stupid or just misguided?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
> You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.
> 
> How is that not an occupied territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of Hawaiians, including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii, voted for statehood, you ignorant little bug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those vast majority were American immigrants who moved there after the invasion.
Click to expand...




What part of "including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm quoting undisputed historical facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are pointlessly repeating anti-American and irrational conclusions, you impotent little nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's anti America about historical facts?
Click to expand...



What part of "irrational conclusions" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

Face it freddy, you've got nothing to say - ever - on any topic aside from your irrational, predictable, block-headed anti-Americanism. Why bother? Everyone has heard your broken record by now. Find something new to say, maybe on a different topic, or stop wasting your time.


----------



## Peterf

Indofred said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true!  In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America!  Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.
> 
> (It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State.  The US Government had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what you're saying is, if local government kills unarmed civilians, it isn't the same as national government killing unarmed civilians.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...


Well what I'm saying is this:  that when the Gov of Ohio sent along the National Guard he had no idea that anyone would die.    I do not believe that 'local government' intentionally milled anyone.     You are, of course, free to believe anything you like, however implausible.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are pointlessly repeating anti-American and irrational conclusions, you impotent little nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's anti America about historical facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "irrational conclusions" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?
Click to expand...


The phrase is easy to understand but I draw no conclusions, save America has used it's troops to murder unarmed American civilians too many times.
In my opinion, once is too many so several times is far too many.

That, given the history is not in dispute, seems fair and reasonable.

The regular insults at the end of each of your posts suggests you are unable to argue the point so have to resort to simple insults in a bootless effort to appear clever.


----------



## Indofred

Peterf said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State.  The US Government had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what you're saying is, if local government kills unarmed civilians, it isn't the same as national government killing unarmed civilians.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what I'm saying is this:  that when the Gov of Ohio sent along the National Guard he had no idea that anyone would die.    I do not believe that 'local government' intentionally milled anyone.     You are, of course, free to believe anything you like, however implausible.
Click to expand...


In my opinion, if you send fully armed, poorly trained troops against unarmed civilians, you can expect problems.
If he wasn't expecting to shoot anyone, why did they take guns?

The facts are simple:
The students were unarmed
The armed troops were used
The troops murdered several unarmed students.

I'm amazed anyone is defending or excusing this.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Face it freddy, you've got nothing to say - ever - on any topic aside from your irrational, predictable, block-headed anti-Americanism. Why bother? Everyone has heard your broken record by now. Find something new to say, maybe on a different topic, or stop wasting your time.



You have yet to explain why quoting undisputed American history is anti American.
You've attempted to do so with insults but have not actually explained it.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's anti America about historical facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "irrational conclusions" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase is easy to understand but I draw no conclusions, save America has used it's troops to murder unarmed American civilians too many times...
Click to expand...



You are either being dishonest or do not understand the English language.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face it freddy, you've got nothing to say - ever - on any topic aside from your irrational, predictable, block-headed anti-Americanism. Why bother? Everyone has heard your broken record by now. Find something new to say, maybe on a different topic, or stop wasting your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to explain why quoting undisputed American history is anti American....
Click to expand...




I have explained several times that your prejudiced conclusions and false comparisons are anti-American, stupid.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
> You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.
> 
> How is that not an occupied territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of Hawaiians, including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii, voted for statehood, you ignorant little bug.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting question, no, very interesting.

I suppose I'll have to start by looking at the demographic in 1959.







So, only 17 % of the population were native and some of them were mixed race.
The rest were not Hawaiian.

Census/Plebiscite



> 132,773 who voted for Proposition 1Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?7,971 voted against it. In this 17-1 mandate by those voting in Hawaiis 1959 primary election for governor, a total of 140,744 votes were cast in this plebiscite.



Wow, high turnout and a massive yes vote. That seems to back you up ...maybe.

Hang on...140,744 votes, or about 90% of the eligible population, what was the population?



> we might consider that the 1950 census for the population of Hawaii was 499,769 while the 1960 census for the population of Hawaii was 632,772, the median age being 38. Not taking into account the population growth from the date of the plebiscite vote (June 27th 1959) to 1960 when the nearest census was completed, or the breakdown of age eligibility for voting, that leaves about 500,000 people (total) unaccounted for.



What, 3.5 times more people than voted were unaccounted for, thus didn't have the chance to vote?
Who were they?



> Although the census does not include the military, many of whom did participate in the vote, roughly only about 35% of the total population actually voted "yes" or "no" on the plebiscite.



35% of the population were voters, many part of the  American military occupation force. Yep, let's allow the occupying force to vote on the status of the island they occupy.



> If we conservatively remove 250,972a third of the populationas being ineligible to vote because of age, we are left with roughly 381,859 eligible voters. Examining the data, one could argue that out of the 474,580 who were eligible to vote in 1959, 341,800. or roughly 65% did not vote in favor of statehood.



The claim was 90% of eligible voters were in favour but we now see, 30% were American immigrants, an unknown number were part of the occupying American army and about 300,000 (Twice the 'yes' voters) were not even counted for some reason.

Sounds a bit dodgy.

So, does undisputed historical fact assist America?

Hawaii is not legally a state! | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



> Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.



American businessmen forced a takeover and were assisted by American troops.
That's not a good start.



> Lili`uokalani was given a document of abdication to sign and was led to believe that, if she refused, several of her followers were to be shot for treason. She wrote, "For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty toward me, would be immediately released ... the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen." It is worth noting that the Hawaiian Constitution did not provide a legal process for the Monarch's abdication and without the approval of the legislature, the document had no legal validity.



The queen was then forced to abdicate, under threat of mass murder of her subjects.
Not cricket, old chap.



> In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state.



What, the ballot paper wasn't even legal because the required third option was missing?



> On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.



Well, even if posters here don;t accept it, the American government admits Hawaii is an illegally occupied territory.

as do the United nations.



> In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).



Everyone agree, Hawaii is an occupied land ... except you.

Care to comment?


----------



## Unkotare

Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF *NATIVE* HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF *NATIVE* HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.



If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway and the ballot should never had taken place because America forced the Queen's abdication with threats of mass murder.

I'm so sorry history, the truth, American law, international law and I are all anti American.
I also feel rather sorry for you; instead of looking at history, you prefer to use half baked insults in an attempt to carry your argument.
Perhaps you could open your mind a little, or even return to collage to improve your education.
Being brainwashed by nationalism is easily done to the weak of mind. 
Real freedom is the ability to think for yourself; not be told what to think by your government and press.

cogito ergo sum


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF *NATIVE* HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...
Click to expand...




Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF *NATIVE* HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.
Click to expand...


What conspiracy?
This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to.

Sometimes, you have to face up to the truth, even if it's anti American in your mind.

Once again, I'm not anti American, just anti much of America's foreign policy.
There's a big difference.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conspiracy?
> This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...
Click to expand...



That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What conspiracy?
> This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.
Click to expand...


Try reading up.
You'll find you are refusing to accept even what is officially accepted by the American government.
That's very foolish.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> What conspiracy?
> This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading up.
> You'll find you are refusing to accept even what is officially accepted by the American government.
> That's very foolish.
Click to expand...




Your peers are all there waiting for you. Don't keep them waiting.


----------



## Indofred

The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable ideas.
History, as accepted by all, doesn't fit that.

Sadly, even though this history is accepted by the White house and not disputed by any reasonable people, you are being less than reasonable.

There is no one quite so blind as the person who does not want to see.

Debate is interesting; talking to a fool is not.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.





They'll love you there.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll love you there.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, you're too stupid to bother with.

unprovable, why sic erat scriptum?
Sorry if you're too thick to understand English.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll love you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you're too stupid to bother with.
> 
> unprovable, why sic erat scriptum?.
Click to expand...





What you are offering is biased opinion and nothing more. Go have fun with your peers on the Conspiracy Forum.


----------



## SalaamAkir

Sometimes I wonder whether history would be different had Macarthur done what he'd wanted...at least North Korea wouldn't exist today


----------



## Meathead

SalaamAkir said:


> Sometimes I wonder whether history would be different had Macarthur done what he'd wanted...at least North Korea wouldn't exist today


Not to mention Patton or McArthur.


----------

