# Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?



## BolshevikHunter

*Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*

Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject. 

We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._

However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH


----------



## SFC Ollie

There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.

And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

SFC Ollie said:


> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.



SFC, I understand that. However, Since we roam their waters ourselves in the South China Sea, would it be considered an act of war by the international community (who's opinion I could give a crap about by the way) if we fired on them without provocation? Just asking? ~BH


----------



## rdean

2,000 hydrogen bombs?


----------



## SFC Ollie

BolshevikHunter said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC, I understand that. However, Since we roam their waters ourselves in the South China Sea, would it be considered an act of war by the international community (who's opinion I could give a crap about by the way) if we fired on them without provocation? Just asking? ~BH
Click to expand...


I don't understand. Why would we fire on them without provocation? If they had enough of a force to force an invasion there would be no doubt what they had planned. Other than that......


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rdean said:


> 2,000 hydrogen bombs?



rd, That's a possibility, but unlikely if they were planning an invasion. I am talking straight up invasion. The land would be useless to them because of the radiation if they nuked us, and their troops would be exposed to it. Even though I wouldn't put it past those red bastards to send them in afterwards anyway. ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

SFC Ollie said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC, I understand that. However, Since we roam their waters ourselves in the South China Sea, would it be considered an act of war by the international community (who's opinion I could give a crap about by the way) if we fired on them without provocation? Just asking? ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Why would we fire on them without provocation? If they had enough of a force to force an invasion there would be no doubt what they had planned. Other than that......
Click to expand...


SFC, I agree, It would be clear what their plans were, but would we just blow them out of the water if let's say, they were sending an international peace keeping force to Mexico? You get what I am saying? ~BH


----------



## uscitizen

Some seem to think that since many of us have guns....
Many in Afganistan had guns too.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

uscitizen said:


> Some seem to think that since many of us have guns....
> Many in Afganistan had guns too.



us, Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan. The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH


----------



## SFC Ollie

BolshevikHunter said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> SFC, I understand that. However, Since we roam their waters ourselves in the South China Sea, would it be considered an act of war by the international community (who's opinion I could give a crap about by the way) if we fired on them without provocation? Just asking? ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Why would we fire on them without provocation? If they had enough of a force to force an invasion there would be no doubt what they had planned. Other than that......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SFC, I agree, It would be clear what their plans were, but would we just blow them out of the water if let's say, they were sending an international peace keeping force to Mexico? You get what I am saying? ~BH
Click to expand...


Shades of Red Dawn!    


Never work.... Yes, I am confident that we would know the real purpose and after warning them to turn around we would start sinking their fleet.


----------



## uscitizen

Why would anyone want to invade us?


----------



## SFC Ollie

I don't know but there's plenty of em coming over the border every day.


----------



## Sallow

The Geography makes a land invasion extremely difficult.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

SFC Ollie said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Why would we fire on them without provocation? If they had enough of a force to force an invasion there would be no doubt what they had planned. Other than that......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC, I agree, It would be clear what their plans were, but would we just blow them out of the water if let's say, they were sending an international peace keeping force to Mexico? You get what I am saying? ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shades of Red Dawn!
> 
> 
> Never work.... Yes, I am confident that we would know the real purpose and after warning them to turn around we would start sinking their fleet.
Click to expand...


I always wondered why in Red Dawn they landed in the Midwest? I mean, wouldn't they land on one of our shores? You would figure the Cubans would atleast start in Florida or one of the other Southern States, but somehow they were up in Middle America, LMAO! Still a great film. And the Russians, how about maybe Alaska or something more interesting? LOL! ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

uscitizen said:


> Why would anyone want to invade us?



I dunno. Just having fun discussing it. What's your guess? ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

Sallow said:


> The Geography makes a land invasion extremely difficult.



Can't argue with that at all bro. Hope things have been good with you. ~BH


----------



## whitehall

We're being invaded right now across the Mexican border. We have American citizens killed on the high seas by pirates. I doubt if we could even identify an invasion force before they landed.


----------



## Cain

I'd feel sorry for a force that landed in Tennessee, I cannot speak for any other state, but from my experience a lot of the people here are armed, and think we will get invaded eventually. Gun ranges, gun clubs, and para-military groups are pretty common here. I have a rifle, and a shotgun and I am just 18. That doesn't include what the rest have here, but mine personally, I loves my rifle .


----------



## waltky

Granny says...

... first we get invaded by dem Hispexicans...

... den dem Mooslamics gonna set up mosques around the country...

... what's dis world comin' to?


----------



## BolshevikHunter

I love discussing these kind of things. It's even better when good people join in on it.  ~BH


----------



## Munin

The Brittish empire couldn't fall either ... it did. The titanic couldn't sink ... it did.

Any Nation can be invaded, even the US. China has now the 2nd biggeste economy in the world, who knows how big and strong their fleet will become in the next 10 years?


The comparison between the USA and China reminds me of another comparison, the one between the USA and the Brittish empire. Don't forget that the US was also in an underdog position as the "former little colony" of the UK.









BBC News - China overtakes Japan as world's second-biggest economy
China overtakes US as world's biggest energy consumer | Environment | The Guardian
China overtakes the US as Brazil's largest trading partner - Telegraph


Also consider the real big threat: China's production power wil be greater than that of the US, cheap workers, cheap production, ...  They will be able to outproduce the US when they have the bigger economy. You know why the US won WWII? Not because it had the best tanks, ... : they won because they outproduced the Nazis even though the Nazis had the best tanks and more experienced troops. The allies also won because of the manpower advantage, at the end of WWII the germans were only fighting with kids, women and old men. China has the biggest manpower pool out of the whole world, so they will be the last one to run out of soldiers.


----------



## KissMy

They could use their satellite missiles to take down our ability to see them, communicate & control weapons. Then launch a couple of EMP bombs 100 miles over the USA to destroy all of our electronics & our power grid. Most of our country would be reduced to communicating with smoke signals, walking or riding bikes. Launch missiles onto all of our military installations. Then proceed with their invasion. Take over all oil, water, gas, power & communications grids. Most of this country would fold like a cheap suit. China has a huge manufacturing base that they could use to rapidly make weapons to keep the battle going. They also have 3 times more people to use for soldiers.

Armed citizens are a great defense. That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.


----------



## Douger

They don't need to. You've already been invaded by Internationalist Nazi's. Don't you read the news ? Take a look at your piece of shit govt. The funny part is you assholes actually voted for it.


----------



## Sarah G

SFC Ollie said:


> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.



Also, they'd have to use nuclear weapons, that would destroy the very thing they'd be looking for in an ivasion of the US.  Land and resources.

Imo, which may be naive, it makes sense for the world to begin working together in an effort to make it a better place for everyone.  I'm sure world leaders have thought of this concept.  Riches begin to get less important when there is nothing left to buy.


----------



## Mini 14

I agree that our geography would make an invasion extremely difficult. Though even with all of the privately owned weapons, I'm not sure China doesn't have a large enough population to overcome the resistance. We should thank God for putting the Pacific where he did  

But.....

An EMP attack.....

and sit back and wait for us to die and kill ourselves off, then walk across I-10 and plant their flag as they go.

An attack on the US would target the infrastructure to create chaos, isolation and division. The ensuing "invasion" would be more like a parade than a war. Even a very small country with as few as 3-4 nuclear weapons (and more importantly, the capability to deliver them) could bring us to our knees in a very short period of time.


----------



## LogicMoose

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._



Excellent quote.
In great defense of the 2nd amendment.

The only possible way I would see to invade America would be to get some crazy good hackers to take over our own stuff and use it against us.
And that's only because our military is becoming reliant on tech.


----------



## rightwinger

Aside from the fact that we can nuke the shit out of anyone.....

The problem is logistics. It took a thousand ships to launch D Day and that was only fifty miles of sea. We are surrounded by over two thousand miles on each side. Even if you could land an invasion force, you couldn't sustain it logistically. 

Nobody has the Navy to launch such an invasion.....and then there is the problem with the US Fleet and Air Force

Armed civilians have nothing to do with it


----------



## Momanohedhunter

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



The quality of the American soldiers would be one factor. Mexico would be a non factor in no time as they wouldn't even be comparable to the Italian soldier of WW-2. They would just fail to be significant. Russia and china would be tougher. They probably have excellent counter measures to our technology and have trained for years to slug it out with us. I would think Canada would help us out as well as England. Would defiantly be a slug fest.


----------



## rightwinger

SFC Ollie said:


> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.



Chinas Navy couldn't take Taiwan


----------



## HUGGY

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



We already have been invaded by China.  They have us paying tribute through Walmart.


----------



## Mini 14

All of this is moot.

"Conventional warfare" is a dinosaur, whose only continued purpose is occupation.

And having the capability to "nuke the shit out of anyone" does not mean there aren't 50 countries/organizations around the world who have, or will soon have the capability to bring us to our knees without ever setting foot anywhere near our shores.

In the future, ALL wars that are fought to win will attack infrastructures, and not the armies or the citizens. And there are VERY few countries on the face of this planet more vulnerable to that type of attack than the USA.

True story, bro.


----------



## LogicMoose

Munin said:


> The Brittish empire couldn't fall either ... it did. The titanic couldn't sink ... it did.
> 
> Any Nation can be invaded, even the US. China has now the 2nd biggeste economy in the world, who knows how big and strong their fleet will become in the next 10 years?
> 
> 
> The comparison between the USA and China reminds me of another comparison, the one between the USA and the Brittish empire. Don't forget that the US was also in an underdog position as the "former little colony" of the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also consider the real big threat: China's production power wil be greater than that of the US, cheap workers, cheap production, ...  They will be able to outproduce the US when they have the bigger economy. You know why the US won WWII? Not because it had the best tanks, ... : they won because they outproduced the Nazis even though the Nazis had the best tanks and more experienced troops. The allies also won because of the manpower advantage, at the end of WWII the germans were only fighting with kids, women and old men. China has the biggest manpower pool out of the whole world, so they will be the last one to run out of soldiers.




Quite a scary statistic there.
Somebody beating *America* in something???
Good to see it on a chart though. Just means we've got to pick up the pace here.


----------



## rightwinger

Mini 14 said:


> All of this is moot.
> 
> "Conventional warfare" is a dinosaur, whose only continued purpose is occupation.
> 
> And having the capability to "nuke the shit out of anyone" does not mean there aren't 50 countries/organizations around the world who have, or will soon have the capability to bring us to our knees without ever setting foot anywhere near our shores.
> 
> In the future, ALL wars that are fought to win will attack infrastructures, and not the armies or the citizens. And there are VERY few countries on the face of this planet more vulnerable to that type of attack than the USA.
> 
> True story, bro.



A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable


----------



## Mini 14

rightwinger said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is moot.
> 
> "Conventional warfare" is a dinosaur, whose only continued purpose is occupation.
> 
> And having the capability to "nuke the shit out of anyone" does not mean there aren't 50 countries/organizations around the world who have, or will soon have the capability to bring us to our knees without ever setting foot anywhere near our shores.
> 
> In the future, ALL wars that are fought to win will attack infrastructures, and not the armies or the citizens. And there are VERY few countries on the face of this planet more vulnerable to that type of attack than the USA.
> 
> True story, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable
Click to expand...


Conventionally speaking, it is a long row to hoe.

But the next attack on the US will be on our infrastructure, and whoever the attacker is will then sit back and wait for us to die off slowly, kill off half of those who survive, and then march down main street as they claim their spoils.

"War" as we know it is fading quickly, returning to what it was all along:

Winner take all....no rules.

It is only a question of when the "superpowers" acquiesce to the reality of war, and stop pretending there is a "humane" way to wage war.

The number of organizations out there with the capability of destroying countries the size of the US, China and Russia is scary stuff. And with very little ordinance at all. The difficult task now is delivering that ordinance. Thankfully, that is the big hurdle that few of those organizations are able to easily clear.

But to take down the US?

As few as 5-6 strategically placed detonations could accomplish it. 

We would do the rest for them.


----------



## KissMy

rightwinger said:


> A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable



An EMP will permanently destroy most electronics & the power grid. A HAARP type weapon can also create this type of destruction & a whole lot more. These weapons would take any country & their military back to the stone ages. Some of the old pre-electronics diesel vehicles could be repaired after an attack, but getting fuel through pipelines & out of station pumps will be a problem.

www.doh.wa.gov Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)


> A 1.4 Megaton bomb launched about 250 miles above Kansas would destroy most of the electronics that were not protected in the entire Continental United States. During the brief return to atmospheric testing in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated over Johnston Island at an altitude of about 250 miles.  The effects of EMP were observed in Hawaii, 800 miles east of the detonation.  Streetlights and fuses failed on Oahu and telephone service was disrupted on the Island of Kauai.


----------



## Munin

KissMy said:


> Armed citizens are a great defense.



Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. 

Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?

Warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia. 




> That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.



We ve not invaded Pakistan yet because we currently give them huge amounts of money and because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"


----------



## Mini 14

Munin said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens are a great defense. That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. And no, we ve not invade Pakistan because we currently give them money. And because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Modern warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
Click to expand...


You're not familiar with EMP?

The next "major war" will not target humans directly. It will target those things we have taught ourselves we "cannot live without." An effective EMP attack (or HAARP, as pointed out above) would result in about 1/3 of the US population dying within 6 months, the remaining 2/3 left to fight amongst themselves for survival. Absolute chaos, and nationalized anarchy. We would annihilate ourselves for the attacking force. Sure, we might have the ability to nuke them into oblivion as well (if we can react quickly enough), but it wouldn't save us from ourselves. Eventually, someone will take that bet. Many are already franticly working towards that opportunity.

"Modern warfare" is for anyone with a true desire to win a war, at all costs, and a handful of WMDs with the capability of delivering them. Other than the WMDs, "modern warfare" has come full circle to the first war ever fought: defeat the enemy at any cost, there are no rules, no treaties, no "collateral damage." All is fair.

The domino effect is the wave of modern warfare.


----------



## KissMy

Munin said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens are a great defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization.
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We ve not invaded Pakistan yet because we currently give them huge amounts of money and because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
Click to expand...



Yeah - Those Russian & American armies really showed Afghanistan. Even Iraq is difficult to hold. When every household is possibly part of the militia, invaders must win hearts & minds or exterminate everyone with extreme prejudice.


----------



## KissMy

Mini 14 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens are a great defense. That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. And no, we ve not invade Pakistan because we currently give them money. And because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Modern warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not familiar with EMP?
> 
> The next "major war" will not target humans directly. It will target those things we have taught ourselves we "cannot live without." An effective EMP attack (or HAARP, as pointed out above) would result in about 1/3 of the US population dying within 6 months, the remaining 2/3 left to fight amongst themselves for survival. Absolute chaos, and nationalized anarchy. We would annihilate ourselves for the attacking force. Sure, we might have the ability to nuke them into oblivion as well (if we can react quickly enough), but it wouldn't save us from ourselves. Eventually, someone will take that bet. Many are already franticly working towards that opportunity.
> 
> "Modern warfare" is for anyone with a true desire to win a war, at all costs, and a handful of WMDs with the capability of delivering them. Other than the WMDs, "modern warfare" has come full circle to the first war ever fought: defeat the enemy at any cost, there are no rules, no treaties, no "collateral damage." All is fair.
> 
> The domino effect is the wave of modern warfare.
Click to expand...


Yup - Except for the flooding the entire country would resemble New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Absolutely no utilities, communications, transportation, food or water. Your weapons are going to be your best defense.


----------



## Mini 14

KissMy said:


> Yup - Except for the flooding the entire country would resemble New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Absolutely no utilities, communications, transportation, food or water. Your weapons are going to be your best defense.



And the ultimate irony is that you will be using your weapons to defend yourself from your fellow countrymen, not the attacker.


----------



## editec

BolshevikHunter said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some seem to think that since many of us have guns....
> Many in Afganistan had guns too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> us, *Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan.* The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH
Click to expand...

 

Wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

KissMy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An EMP will permanently destroy most electronics & the power grid. A HAARP type weapon can also create this type of destruction & a whole lot more. These weapons would take any country & their military back to the stone ages. Some of the old pre-electronics diesel vehicles could be repaired after an attack, but getting fuel through pipelines & out of station pumps will be a problem.
> 
> www.doh.wa.gov Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
> 
> 
> 
> A 1.4 Megaton bomb launched about 250 miles above Kansas would destroy most of the electronics that were not protected in the entire Continental United States. During the brief return to atmospheric testing in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated over Johnston Island at an altitude of about 250 miles.  The effects of EMP were observed in Hawaii, 800 miles east of the detonation.  Streetlights and fuses failed on Oahu and telephone service was disrupted on the Island of Kauai.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Military equipment is tested against HAEMP. A military Comms infrastructure could be used for emergency enplacement  EMP would mess us up but there are contingencies in place. You still have to land a military occupation force here and our military would still be there after an EMP attack


----------



## rdean

BolshevikHunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 hydrogen bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rd, That's a possibility, but unlikely if they were planning an invasion. I am talking straight up invasion. The land would be useless to them because of the radiation if they nuked us, and their troops would be exposed to it. Even though I wouldn't put it past those red bastards to send them in afterwards anyway. ~BH
Click to expand...


They had to come from somewhere.  They come here to invade, they will have no home to go back to.


----------



## Mini 14

rightwinger said:


> Military equipment is tested against HAEMP. A military Comms infrastructure could be used for emergency enplacement  EMP would mess us up but there are contingencies in place. You still have to land a military occupation force here and our military would still be there after an EMP attack



But how much of our military would be needed to police our own citizens? EMP attacks the military from both sides (internally as well as externally).

That is the allure of EMP. It affects EVERYONE, most notably, the everyday civilian.

There simply is no way to escape an effective EMP attack. Your best scenario is that you're equipped well enough to survive the first 3-6 months, and armed well enough to fight off those who weren't prepared for however long it takes. (years?)


----------



## rdean

Mini 14 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens are a great defense. That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. And no, we ve not invade Pakistan because we currently give them money. And because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Modern warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not familiar with EMP?
> 
> The next "major war" will not target humans directly. It will target those things we have taught ourselves we "cannot live without." An effective EMP attack (or HAARP, as pointed out above) would result in about 1/3 of the US population dying within 6 months, the remaining 2/3 left to fight amongst themselves for survival. Absolute chaos, and nationalized anarchy. We would annihilate ourselves for the attacking force. Sure, we might have the ability to nuke them into oblivion as well (if we can react quickly enough), but it wouldn't save us from ourselves. Eventually, someone will take that bet. Many are already franticly working towards that opportunity.
> 
> "Modern warfare" is for anyone with a true desire to win a war, at all costs, and a handful of WMDs with the capability of delivering them. Other than the WMDs, "modern warfare" has come full circle to the first war ever fought: defeat the enemy at any cost, there are no rules, no treaties, no "collateral damage." All is fair.
> 
> The domino effect is the wave of modern warfare.
Click to expand...


A March 1989 Incident: A lesser solar storm caused the Canadian power grid to go down for over nine hours. Resulting damages and loss of revenue estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

A 1994 Incident: A solar storm caused major malfunctions to two communications satellites.

The Sun: Sunspots - Solar Flares - Solar Storms - Solar Max - EMP - CME

More likely are solar flares or storms.  Electrical grids can be built so they won't be affected, but that won't help us.  Our grid is old and outdated.  Eric Cantor, in the bill he proposed to stop spending, slashes any funds for improving America's infrastructure.  Try to explain "solar storms" to a Republican.  They are about as likely to believe that as "Climate change" and "evolution".

We know about it.  It's going to happen.  Republicans will stop us from doing anything about it.  Then they will try to blame it on scientists for not making them believe or Democrats.  The Republican Party of "take no responsibility".


----------



## KissMy

rightwinger said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An EMP will permanently destroy most electronics & the power grid. A HAARP type weapon can also create this type of destruction & a whole lot more. These weapons would take any country & their military back to the stone ages. Some of the old pre-electronics diesel vehicles could be repaired after an attack, but getting fuel through pipelines & out of station pumps will be a problem.
> 
> www.doh.wa.gov Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
> 
> 
> 
> A 1.4 Megaton bomb launched about 250 miles above Kansas would destroy most of the electronics that were not protected in the entire Continental United States. During the brief return to atmospheric testing in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated over Johnston Island at an altitude of about 250 miles.  The effects of EMP were observed in Hawaii, 800 miles east of the detonation.  Streetlights and fuses failed on Oahu and telephone service was disrupted on the Island of Kauai.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Military equipment is tested against HAEMP. A military Comms infrastructure could be used for emergency enplacement  EMP would mess us up but there are contingencies in place. You still have to land a military occupation force here and our military would still be there after an EMP attack
Click to expand...


Not all the key military equipment can be hardened against EMP. The only real defense is to have replacement circuitry sealed in foil ready for trained personnel to install after an attack. Lots of current data would be lost in the attack.


----------



## rightwinger

Mini 14 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens are a great defense. That is why we have not invaded Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. And no, we ve not invade Pakistan because we currently give them money. And because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Modern warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not familiar with EMP?
> 
> The next "major war" will not target humans directly. It will target those things we have taught ourselves we "cannot live without." An effective EMP attack (or HAARP, as pointed out above) would result in about 1/3 of the US population dying within 6 months, the remaining 2/3 left to fight amongst themselves for survival. Absolute chaos, and nationalized anarchy. We would annihilate ourselves for the attacking force. Sure, we might have the ability to nuke them into oblivion as well (if we can react quickly enough), but it wouldn't save us from ourselves. Eventually, someone will take that bet. Many are already franticly working towards that opportunity.
> 
> "Modern warfare" is for anyone with a true desire to win a war, at all costs, and a handful of WMDs with the capability of delivering them. Other than the WMDs, "modern warfare" has come full circle to the first war ever fought: defeat the enemy at any cost, there are no rules, no treaties, no "collateral damage." All is fair.
> 
> The domino effect is the wave of modern warfare.
Click to expand...


An EMP attack on the US would be treated like any other nuclear attack. Whoever launched it would see a hundred times the devastation the US sees.


----------



## Mini 14

rightwinger said:


> An EMP attack on the US would be treated like any other nuclear attack. Whoever launched it would see a hundred times the devastation the US sees.



I don't doubt that. Not one bit. I'm sure they (an attacker) don't either.

It will keep us all feeling better as we attack and defend against ourselves (this is the objective of an EMP attack)

Do you think the hijackers on 9/11 thought they would survive? And did the fact that they did not survive lessen the impact on us?


----------



## rightwinger

KissMy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An EMP will permanently destroy most electronics & the power grid. A HAARP type weapon can also create this type of destruction & a whole lot more. These weapons would take any country & their military back to the stone ages. Some of the old pre-electronics diesel vehicles could be repaired after an attack, but getting fuel through pipelines & out of station pumps will be a problem.
> 
> www.doh.wa.gov Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military equipment is tested against HAEMP. A military Comms infrastructure could be used for emergency enplacement  EMP would mess us up but there are contingencies in place. You still have to land a military occupation force here and our military would still be there after an EMP attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all the key military equipment can be hardened against EMP. The only real defense is to have replacement circuitry sealed in foil ready for trained personnel to install after an attack. Lots of current data would be lost in the attack.
Click to expand...


All critical military equipment is required to have a HAEMP survivability strategy in place. It must either have the circuitry to directly survive or be capable of being brought back on line within 60 min. An EMP attack would not bring our military to it's knees

Our retaliation would bring our opponent to his knees


----------



## SFC Ollie

22 years in the US Army Signal Corps. Everything from running cable to Satellite and Tropo radio, to Cellular networks. Believe me, our CCC is protected from EMP.

(Command Control Communications)

I'm sure any other critical systems are also as well protected.


----------



## rdean

SFC Ollie said:


> 22 years in the US Army Signal Corps. Everything from running cable to Satellite and Tropo radio, to Cellular networks. Believe me, our CCC is protected from EMP.
> 
> (Command Control Communications)
> 
> I'm sure any other critical systems are also as well protected.



I'm sure you can provide a link if you looked.


----------



## rightwinger

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 years in the US Army Signal Corps. Everything from running cable to Satellite and Tropo radio, to Cellular networks. Believe me, our CCC is protected from EMP.
> 
> (Command Control Communications)
> 
> I'm sure any other critical systems are also as well protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can provide a link if you looked.
Click to expand...


I've been fielding Comms systems to the Army for 30 years. I have never been able to field anything without HAEMP testing and certification.


----------



## SFC Ollie

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 years in the US Army Signal Corps. Everything from running cable to Satellite and Tropo radio, to Cellular networks. Believe me, our CCC is protected from EMP.
> 
> (Command Control Communications)
> 
> I'm sure any other critical systems are also as well protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can provide a link if you looked.
Click to expand...


On this, I am the link. Believe me or don't, I could care less what you want to believe. My record speaks for itself.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

editec said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some seem to think that since many of us have guns....
> Many in Afganistan had guns too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> us, *Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan.* The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Unless you're speaking of the U.S Military, who else besides who I mentioned does? ~BH


----------



## SFC Ollie

BolshevikHunter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> us, *Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan.* The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're speaking of the U.S Military, who else besides who I mentioned does? ~BH
Click to expand...


Truth is I think you covered at least half the country.....


----------



## onecut39

Conventional wars between nation states with nuclear weapons are a fantasy.  There would be no winner.
anyone remember MADD?


----------



## rightwinger

onecut39 said:


> Conventional wars between nation states with nuclear weapons are a fantasy.  There would be no winner.
> anyone remember MADD?



Mothers Against Drunk Driving?


----------



## High_Gravity

Maybe we should let Russia and China invade us, than demand billions from them for re-construction.


----------



## High_Gravity

BolshevikHunter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> us, *Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan.* The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're speaking of the U.S Military, who else besides who I mentioned does? ~BH
Click to expand...


Afghanistan has been in a state of war for decades, the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, when the Taliban took over in the mid 90s they have a civil war with the Northern Alliance and now the war with the US since 2001. Many Afghans have grown up only knowing war, do you know how much arms were pumped in that country since the 80s? many Taliban fight with rifles they used against the Soviets in the 80s and the ones the Saudis, Pakistanis and the Americans supplied the Mujahideen. Weapons are all over the fucking place in Afghanistan, if you want me to be frank. Easier to find than tits in a strip joint.


----------



## Toro

The US could be invaded by Canada.

But who would care?


----------



## 8236

This thread is far and away the most moronic I have read on this site in 7 years.

When will you dumbass gun toting trigger happy cretins realise NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN INVADING YOU. They are already defeating you where it matters, namely economically

So, if instead of spending as much on arms as the ENTIRE of the rest of the world combined, you cut your deficit or invested in your people, then maybe just maybe China won't economically wipe all our western asses by the end of this decade.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Mini 14 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military equipment is tested against HAEMP. A military Comms infrastructure could be used for emergency enplacement  EMP would mess us up but there are contingencies in place. You still have to land a military occupation force here and our military would still be there after an EMP attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how much of our military would be needed to police our own citizens? EMP attacks the military from both sides (internally as well as externally).
> 
> That is the allure of EMP. It affects EVERYONE, most notably, the everyday civilian.
> 
> There simply is no way to escape an effective EMP attack. Your best scenario is that you're equipped well enough to survive the first 3-6 months, and armed well enough to fight off those who weren't prepared for however long it takes. (years?)
Click to expand...


Not much military would be needed. That is what the National Guard is for. I have seen two hurricanes shut city's down and while it sucks, it gets managed. EMP or not, any force will have to cross an ocean to get here either by air or sea.  The attacking country's would also have to contend with EMP and attacks from our subs as well as the military power of our allies. China is doing pretty good by killing our dollar for now. I think that would be more affective then EMP ever could.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

8236 said:


> This thread is far and away the most moronic I have read on this site in 7 years.
> 
> When will you dumbass gun toting trigger happy cretins realise NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN INVADING YOU. They are already defeating you where it matters, namely economically
> 
> So, if instead of spending as much on arms as the ENTIRE of the rest of the world combined, you cut your deficit or invested in your people, then maybe just maybe China won't economically wipe all our western asses by the end of this decade.



Then why read it ?


----------



## Two Thumbs

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



It would have to be a big team up;

we get no help from our allies.
If the ME cut us off from oil.
russia, china and Mex work together

It could be done

Russia and China are our only serous enemy nations, Mex could be bribed into helping.

Russia would have to land in AK and unload very very quickly.

no, you know what.  this is fantasy.  the russians and chinese don't get along, the mexicans are to disorganised to give a damn and out weapons far exceed those of any country on the planet.

It would be an epic beating that would keep the worlds mouth shut when we said how things were going to be from now on.


----------



## 8236

Momanohedhunter said:


> 8236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is far and away the most moronic I have read on this site in 7 years.
> 
> When will you dumbass gun toting trigger happy cretins realise NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN INVADING YOU. They are already defeating you where it matters, namely economically
> 
> So, if instead of spending as much on arms as the ENTIRE of the rest of the world combined, you cut your deficit or invested in your people, then maybe just maybe China won't economically wipe all our western asses by the end of this decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why read it ?
Click to expand...


Doh! Like why did they bother having some in the US. military learn Japanese during WWII.


----------



## editec

This thread sort of reminds me of kids debating what would happen if the GREEN LANTERN got into a fight with BATMAN.

Only in that case, what the kids thought on the subject was more reality based than this thread, because their debate is based on facts gleaned from their _careful reading_ of DC comics.


----------



## Two Thumbs

editec said:


> This thread sort of reminds me of kids debating what would happen if the GREEN LANTERN got into a fight with BATMAN.
> 
> Only in that case, what the kids thought on the subject was more reality based than this thread, because their debate is based on facts gleaned from their _careful reading_ of DC comics.



Batman would so kick the Green Lanterns prissy little ass.


----------



## rightwinger

Toro said:


> The US could be invaded by Canada.
> 
> But who would care?



We would get better healthcare


----------



## Momanohedhunter

rightwinger said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US could be invaded by Canada.
> 
> But who would care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would get better healthcare
Click to expand...


Canada would invade us FOR better health care.


----------



## editec

Two Thumbs said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread sort of reminds me of kids debating what would happen if the GREEN LANTERN got into a fight with BATMAN.
> 
> Only in that case, what the kids thought on the subject was more reality based than this thread, because their debate is based on facts gleaned from their _careful reading_ of DC comics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batman would so kick the Green Lanterns prissy little ass.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe... if he wore a yellow batsuit.

Otherwise?

GL would kick his Chiropteran butt.


----------



## High_Gravity

Why don't we let China invade us and than charge billions for reconstruction?


----------



## Two Thumbs

editec said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread sort of reminds me of kids debating what would happen if the GREEN LANTERN got into a fight with BATMAN.
> 
> Only in that case, what the kids thought on the subject was more reality based than this thread, because their debate is based on facts gleaned from their _careful reading_ of DC comics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batman would so kick the Green Lanterns prissy little ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe... if he wore a yellow batsuit.
> 
> Otherwise?
> 
> GL would kick his Chiropteran butt.
Click to expand...


I gaaaruuuunteeee you!  Batman has the tools in his bat belt or bat cave to beat everyone.

GL would get tossed into the Bat spank machine in no time.


----------



## GHook93

(1) They could nuke similuteously about 25 of our largest cities.
(2) Neutralize our Airforce and nuclear bomb stockpiles
(3) Cripple our army
(4) Knock our our communicatons
(5) Kill our leaders
(6) And invade before the Americans could regroup


----------



## High_Gravity

GHook93 said:


> (1) They could nuke similuteously about 25 of our largest cities.
> (2) Neutralize our Airforce and nuclear bomb stockpiles
> (3) Cripple our army
> (4) Knock our our communicatons
> (5) Kill our leaders
> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup



China could drop 200 million illegals on our doorstep and invade us that way.


----------



## Two Thumbs

GHook93 said:


> (1) They could nuke similuteously about 25 of our largest cities.
> (2) Neutralize our Airforce and nuclear bomb stockpiles
> (3) Cripple our army
> (4) Knock our our communicatons
> (5) Kill our leaders
> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup



They couldn't get to step one.

Seriously, we are WAY ahead of them in war tech.

America is not #1 at everything and maybe not most things.

But when it comes to killing muthafuckers? we are #1 with a bullet!


----------



## editec

Two Thumbs said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batman would so kick the Green Lanterns prissy little ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... if he wore a yellow batsuit.
> 
> Otherwise?
> 
> GL would kick his Chiropteran butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gaaaruuuunteeee you! Batman has the tools in his bat belt or bat cave to beat everyone.
> 
> GL would get tossed into the Bat spank machine in no time.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe if his girlfriend, Robin, threw fairy dust in GL's eyes, first. 

I mean how much respect can anyone have for crimefighters who only fight obviously mental cases like the Riddler and Joker and the (oooh I'm scared!) _Penguin!?!._

Batman is just another rich scion pretending to be a tough guy by driving around a cool car.

Lois Lane could knock him over, and Jimmy Olsen would kick his ass when she did.


----------



## rightwinger

China can't invade Taiwan.....how are they going to invade us?


----------



## Two Thumbs

editec said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... if he wore a yellow batsuit.
> 
> Otherwise?
> 
> GL would kick his Chiropteran butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gaaaruuuunteeee you! Batman has the tools in his bat belt or bat cave to beat everyone.
> 
> GL would get tossed into the Bat spank machine in no time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if his girlfriend, Robin, threw fairy dust in GL's eyes, first.
> 
> I mean how much respect can anyone have for crimefighters who only fight obviously mental cases like the Riddler and Joker and the (oooh I'm scared!) _Penguin!?!._
> 
> Batman is just another rich scion pretending to be a tough guy by driving around a cool car.
> 
> Lois Lane could knock him over, and Jimmy Olsen would kick his ass when she did.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, he's got all those years of training and stuff.  And the money to buy the coolest stuff on the planet.

What's GL got?  A ring and a lamp.

A LAMP.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Two Thumbs said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gaaaruuuunteeee you! Batman has the tools in his bat belt or bat cave to beat everyone.
> 
> GL would get tossed into the Bat spank machine in no time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if his girlfriend, Robin, threw fairy dust in GL's eyes, first.
> 
> I mean how much respect can anyone have for crimefighters who only fight obviously mental cases like the Riddler and Joker and the (oooh I'm scared!) _Penguin!?!._
> 
> Batman is just another rich scion pretending to be a tough guy by driving around a cool car.
> 
> Lois Lane could knock him over, and Jimmy Olsen would kick his ass when she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, he's got all those years of training and stuff.  And the money to buy the coolest stuff on the planet.
> 
> What's GL got?  A ring and a lamp.
> 
> A LAMP.
Click to expand...


Green Lantern would burn Bat fags face off with his ring and take his money and toys.


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all,* It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".*However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH




_  It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.". 

Unfortunately, Yamamoto never said that

Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote




			You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. 
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japans wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
		
Click to expand...


It would make no sense for Yamamoto to say such a thing. However it does make a nice NRA talking point to appeal to the invasion fantasies of gun owners_


----------



## Munin

Just so you know: America already has been invaded by Colonial powers. 

It proves your statement wrong


----------



## DetCord

BolshevikHunter said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some seem to think that since many of us have guns....
> Many in Afganistan had guns too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> us, Only the Taliban, Al Qaeda and various tribal warlord groups are armed in Afganistan. The rest of the folks their are living in mass poverty. Unless you grow poppies and want a personal firearm I suppose.  ~BH
Click to expand...


I can't tell if the smiley applies to the entire comment, or simply the last sentence. 

Every last swingin' d#%k over there has a AK or two per household.


----------



## DetCord

rightwinger said:


> China can't invade Taiwan.....how are they going to invade us?



Excellent point.


----------



## rightwinger

Munin said:


> Just so you know: America already has been invaded by Colonial powers.
> 
> It proves your statement wrong



Yes

We were saved by the Tea Baggers


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all,* It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".*However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _  It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".
> 
> Unfortunately, Yamamoto never said that
> 
> Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
> It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japans wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would make no sense for Yamamoto to say such a thing. However it does make a nice NRA talking point to appeal to the invasion fantasies of gun owners_
Click to expand...

_

I figured you would assume that it was something to do with politics in this discussion. Actually, another moron like yourself assumed the same thing days ago. Hey? I really could give a crap about politics when it comes down to history. History, meaning it's already said and done. My intent had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, though I obviously support it always. Unless you can prove that he didn't say it, then shut the fuck up just like I told the last dickLip who assumed the worse.  ~BH_


----------



## BolshevikHunter

DetCord said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> China can't invade Taiwan.....how are they going to invade us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point.
Click to expand...


I would suggest wiping his asshole off your nose. What do you think about that? Huh, You noobfuck fraud?  ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all,* It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".*However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _  It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".
> 
> Unfortunately, Yamamoto never said that
> 
> Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
> It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japans wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would make no sense for Yamamoto to say such a thing. However it does make a nice NRA talking point to appeal to the invasion fantasies of gun owners_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> I figured you would assume that it was something to do with politics in this discussion. Actually, another moron like yourself assumed the same thing days ago. Hey? I really could give a crap about politics when it comes down to history. History, meaning it's already said and done. My intent had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, though I obviously support it always. Unless you can prove that he didn't say it, then shut the fuck up just like I told the last dickLip who assumed the worse.  ~BH_
Click to expand...

_

Why don't you admit that your so called history regarding Yamamoto is just made up nonsense by the NRA gun nuts?

Otherwise, provide a link showing when and where Yamamoto said it. Context is everything...._


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _  It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said "If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".
> 
> Unfortunately, Yamamoto never said that
> 
> Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote
> 
> 
> 
> It would make no sense for Yamamoto to say such a thing. However it does make a nice NRA talking point to appeal to the invasion fantasies of gun owners_
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> I figured you would assume that it was something to do with politics in this discussion. Actually, another moron like yourself assumed the same thing days ago. Hey? I really could give a crap about politics when it comes down to history. History, meaning it's already said and done. My intent had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, though I obviously support it always. Unless you can prove that he didn't say it, then shut the fuck up just like I told the last dickLip who assumed the worse.  ~BH_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Why don't you admit that your so called history regarding Yamamoto is just made up nonsense by the NRA gun nuts?
> 
> Otherwise, provide a link showing when and where Yamamoto said it. Context is everything...._
Click to expand...

_

Why don't you provide a link where he didn't say it rw? =Exactly. Neither of us can. However, Like I said before, Read 'Yamamoto, The man who menaced America'. Published in 1965. Robert Deane Potter interviewed those who served with Yamamato. And again like I said before, he did his homework and knew much more than any idiots online today. This claim that he never said it didn't turn up until the late 90's bro. ~BH_


----------



## rightwinger

The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance  A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots. 
They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you would assume that it was something to do with politics in this discussion. Actually, another moron like yourself assumed the same thing days ago. Hey? I really could give a crap about politics when it comes down to history. History, meaning it's already said and done. My intent had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, though I obviously support it always. Unless you can prove that he didn't say it, then shut the fuck up just like I told the last dickLip who assumed the worse.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you admit that your so called history regarding Yamamoto is just made up nonsense by the NRA gun nuts?
> 
> Otherwise, provide a link showing when and where Yamamoto said it. Context is everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide a link where he didn't say it rw? =Exactly. Neither of us can. However, Like I said before, Read 'Yamamoto, The man who menaced America'. Published in 1965. Robert Deane Potter interviewed those who served with Yamamato. And again like I said before, he did his homework and knew much more than any idiots online today. This claim that he never said it didn't turn up until the late 90's bro. ~BH
Click to expand...


I already provided my link showing that your Yamamoto quote was discredited. The burden of proof is now on you. A great man like Yamamoto has documented quotes. Show where and when he said it

Otherwise, it is just NRA bullshit justifying gun ownership


----------



## SFC Ollie

Never thought there should be a reason needed to justify owning a gun......


----------



## Terral

Hi Bolshev:



BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Any other Nation?*



Invading the USA with any foreign force would be very difficult to achieve, because the American people have too many guns and have tasted freedom and know the consequences of laying down to an invading force. Any invasion force requires a supply line to continually feed and rearm the invading force and keep their machinery fueled and maintained. The USA has too many active and former military personnel and we outgun any invading force by 100 to 1. 

The peoples of the world are not stupid enough to try invading the USA with expectations of coming out alive. Foreigners send their children here to be educated and then call on the USA in times of trouble like in Japan. They even continue taking worthless US fiat dollars that Bernanke has printed to oblivion, while pretending the currency is still worth something. Then you have the example of Japan in WW2. No. China has beaten the USA at the economic game and is taking the leadership role in the currency department as we speak. They need Americans around to buy their goods, so they can rub our noses in it ...

Terral


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance  A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
> They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
> Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US



Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.

You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you admit that your so called history regarding Yamamoto is just made up nonsense by the NRA gun nuts?
> 
> Otherwise, provide a link showing when and where Yamamoto said it. Context is everything....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide a link where he didn't say it rw? =Exactly. Neither of us can. However, Like I said before, Read 'Yamamoto, The man who menaced America'. Published in 1965. Robert Deane Potter interviewed those who served with Yamamato. And again like I said before, he did his homework and knew much more than any idiots online today. This claim that he never said it didn't turn up until the late 90's bro. ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided my link showing that your Yamamoto quote was discredited. The burden of proof is now on you. A great man like Yamamoto has documented quotes. Show where and when he said it
> 
> Otherwise, it is just NRA bullshit justifying gun ownership
Click to expand...


Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb fuck like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda. 

Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!! 

Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you.  ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

Terral said:


> Hi Bolshev:
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Any other Nation?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invading the USA with any foreign force would be very difficult to achieve, because the American people have too many guns and have tasted freedom and know the consequences of laying down to an invading force. Any invasion force requires a supply line to continually feed and rearm the invading force and keep their machinery fueled and maintained. The USA has too many active and former military personnel and we outgun any invading force by 100 to 1.
> 
> The peoples of the world are not stupid enough to try invading the USA with expectations of coming out alive. Foreigners send their children here to be educated and then call on the USA in times of trouble like in Japan. They even continue taking worthless US fiat dollars that Bernanke has printed to oblivion, while pretending the currency is still worth something. Then you have the example of Japan in WW2. No. China has beaten the USA at the economic game and is taking the leadership role in the currency department as we speak. They need Americans around to buy their goods, so they can rub our noses in it ...
> 
> Terral
Click to expand...


Terral, Nice to see you back bro. Yeah, I agree 100%. I never thought it could happen, I just thought it was a good discussion topic. Unfortunately, it's hard to discuss History without an android like rightwinger (who is a fraud) coming into this thread and acting like this is a pro 2nd Amendment thread because of what Yamamato said, or supposedly said. Fact is, He can't prove that he didn't say it, so it's on him. ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance  A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
> They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
> Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.
> 
> You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH
Click to expand...


Let me explain how it works..

Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade

Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide a link where he didn't say it rw? =Exactly. Neither of us can. However, Like I said before, Read 'Yamamoto, The man who menaced America'. Published in 1965. Robert Deane Potter interviewed those who served with Yamamato. And again like I said before, he did his homework and knew much more than any idiots online today. This claim that he never said it didn't turn up until the late 90's bro. ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided my link showing that your Yamamoto quote was discredited. The burden of proof is now on you. A great man like Yamamoto has documented quotes. Show where and when he said it
> 
> Otherwise, it is just NRA bullshit justifying gun ownership
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb fuck like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda.
> 
> Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!!
> 
> Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you.  ~BH
Click to expand...


Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus


----------



## rightwinger

Misquoting Yamamoto | FactCheck.org

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan&#8217;s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: _"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."_

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. *There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan&#8217;s wartime fleet ever saying it.*

How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."


----------



## rightwinger

_ Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. &#8230; As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.  _

"We make no argument either for or against gun ownership.  But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact."


----------



## rightwinger

SFC Ollie said:


> Never thought there should be a reason needed to justify owning a gun......



There are plenty of reasons to own a gun...

Self defense
Hunting
Sport shooting
Collecting unique weapons

Unfortunately, the NRA types like to engage gun owners in the fantasy that they are somehow protecting the country from invasion.  The "BAM....BAM.....Take that you filthy Commie"

That is why the Yamamoto quote was made up. To give gun owners the fantasy that their presence somehow saved the country from a Jap invasion


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance  A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
> They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
> Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.
> 
> You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain how it works..
> 
> Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade
> 
> Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army
Click to expand...


You're so absorbed with politics that you see it in every subject, even when it's not there. Basically, I thought you were more intelligent than that. I guess not. ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided my link showing that your Yamamoto quote was discredited. The burden of proof is now on you. A great man like Yamamoto has documented quotes. Show where and when he said it
> 
> Otherwise, it is just NRA bullshit justifying gun ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb fuck like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda.
> 
> Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!!
> 
> Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus
Click to expand...


Simple enough, You're a fucking idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad. 

I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the fucking book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it.  ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb fuck like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda.
> 
> Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!!
> 
> Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple enough, You're a fucking idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad.
> 
> I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the fucking book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it.  ~BH
Click to expand...


Yamamoto said millions of things in his life. I can't prove that he never said he likes to prance around in womens panties

However.....If I claimed that Yamamoto had said that he liked to prance around in womens panties....the burden of proof would be on me


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple enough, You're a fucking idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad.
> 
> I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the fucking book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yamamoto said millions of things in his life. I can't prove that he never said he likes to prance around in womens panties
> 
> However.....If I claimed that Yamamoto had said that he liked to prance around in womens panties....the burden of proof would be on me
Click to expand...


Yeah, But the guy is deceased. As far as finding an online quote of Potter's book is impossible because it's so old. All that actually popped up on my search was this thread. I guess I could scan the page in my book where he said it, but then you will just say that Robert Deane Potter was a gun nut, and that was his motive instead of him hearing it from one of the Men who served with Yamamato. Also, I would have to locate that page in the book, which would not be an easy task. Then I would waste even more time scanning the page all for you to come back with some bullshit response.

Tell yuh what rw? I purchased this book for $1.25, I shit you not, from Bay Books used & rare books. I am sure that you have a used book store around you? I am willing to locate the exact page where Potter claims he said this, and then you can buy it and see for yourself. I have already spent alot of time looking for the page, so why not buy it and read it? It's a great book. You can't honestly believe that Potter was some gun nut and had Pro gun right intentions in 1965? If you truly believe that, then you're really a fool bro. ~BH


----------



## Vargulf

I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
However, a new form of invasion is already underway.  This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood.  Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within.  Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.


----------



## The Gadfly

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance  A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
> They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
> Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.
> 
> You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain how it works..
> 
> Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade
> 
> Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army
Click to expand...

OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in  occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet. 

To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.

Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.

That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.

I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.
> 
> You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain how it works..
> 
> Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade
> 
> Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in  occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet.
> 
> To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.
> 
> Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.
> 
> That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.
> 
> I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.
Click to expand...


Love your post bro, but our friend rw's only arguement on this subject, which really has nothing to do with it, is that whether Yamamoto ever truly made the statement that "if Japan was to ever attack America, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" quote.

rw says that Isoroku never said this, however it's more than debatable. I own a book by Robert deane Potter (Yamamato 'the man who menaced America'), which was published in 1965. Potter interviewed many men who served with Yamamoto and a few of them validated the fact that he made that quote concerning the dangers of invading the USA west coast.

Now, for the good stuff concering our buddy "the so-called" rightwinger. This mentally confused, anti-2nd amendment nutjob seems to claim, and even suggest that those, including Potter back in 1965, were making these claims that Yamamoto's quote "If Japan were to invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" was because they had a pro 2nd amendment agenda, and it was not that Potter actually varified these quotes from those who served with Isoroku Yamamoto, but that they were pro-gun activists! 

Fact is, It's in Potter's book back in 1965 for anyone to see. Linking anything in this book with some pro 2nd amendment agenda is nothing short of a crystal clear liberal anti-gun mental illness. This right here my friends, just shows how unhinged some of these anti-Gun kooks are. What the hell does this have to do with anything to do with firearms? = Absolutely nothing. zERO! We were actually enjoying some World War 2 discussion up until this maniac highjacked the thread like a little pathetic troll. I actually liked rw, but like a brother on dope, at some point you gotta force him to sleep in a card board box for a few nights until he wakes up. 

So he could have capitalized on an otherwise friendly historical discussion concering the second World War, but the brainwashed, mentally deranged, anti-gun leftist moron decided to pick a fight, where there was never a fight to begin with, only a mutual enjoyable, historical world war 2 discussion. 

WoW! In One night, rw went from herO, To zerO! LMAO!!!  ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation

I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says...

... if the Hispexicans can do it...

... don't see any reason for anybody else not to.


----------



## rightwinger

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man bro, you really are a fucking moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.
> 
> You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany.  Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain how it works..
> 
> Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade
> 
> Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in  occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet.
> 
> To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.
> 
> Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.
> 
> That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.
> 
> I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.
Click to expand...


Thanks...well stated

It supports the fact that the US could not have been invaded by Japan, Germany or any other nation. The logistics of supporting an invasion force of the magnitude needed make a US invasion impossible

Gun owners would not make a difference


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation
> 
> I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book



You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the fucking book already! 

Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the fucking book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation
> 
> I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the fucking book already!
> 
> Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the fucking book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH
Click to expand...


Much like factcheck.org has already told you.  You will find you quote is not in there

Happy hunting


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation
> 
> I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the fucking book already!
> 
> Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the fucking book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like factcheck.org has already told you.  You will find you quote is not in there
> 
> Happy hunting
Click to expand...


No worries. Patience my dumb shit. ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

Vargulf said:


> I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
> However, a new form of invasion is already underway.  This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood.  Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
> Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within.  Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
> Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
> Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.



To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb fuck 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!  

 ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> Vargulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
> However, a new form of invasion is already underway.  This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood.  Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
> Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within.  Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
> Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
> Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb fuck 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!
> 
> ~BH
Click to expand...



I seem to recall?.....

Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vargulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
> However, a new form of invasion is already underway.  This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood.  Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
> Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within.  Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
> Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
> Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb fuck 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!
> 
> ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall?.....
> 
> Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either
Click to expand...


The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb fuck 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!
> 
> ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall?.....
> 
> Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH
Click to expand...


You are on

One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context  You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall?.....
> 
> Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are on
> 
> One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context  You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search
Click to expand...


rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the fuck would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH


----------



## rightwinger

BolshevikHunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on
> 
> One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context  You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the fuck would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH
Click to expand...


Factcheck says you are wrong......

Doesn't take long to scan a book for what you are looking for.  Unless it's not there


----------



## BolshevikHunter

rightwinger said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are on
> 
> One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context  You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the fuck would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit.  ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Factcheck says you are wrong......
> 
> Doesn't take long to scan a book for what you are looking for.  Unless it's not there
Click to expand...


I don't give a damn what Factcheck says bro! And yes it does take quite awhile to search through a 400 page book for one quote. I don't know what the fuck you do during the day, but I gotta make a living for my family. I am sure I will locate it tonight or by tomorrow. Either way, Judgement day is coming for you buddy.  Get ready to kiss the baby! ~BH


----------



## M14 Shooter

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



One word:
Logistics

To lift sufficient force to invade the US is just the tip of the iceberg - you must then supply those forces.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BolshevikHunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 hydrogen bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rd, That's a possibility, but unlikely if they were planning an invasion. I am talking straight up invasion. The land would be useless to them because of the radiation if they nuked us, and their troops would be exposed to it. Even though I wouldn't put it past those red bastards to send them in afterwards anyway. ~BH
Click to expand...

I think he means to use them agianst mainland China (et al), not on the battlefield.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Mini 14 said:


> I agree that our geography would make an invasion extremely difficult. Though even with all of the privately owned weapons, I'm not sure China doesn't have a large enough population to overcome the resistance. We should thank God for putting the Pacific where he did
> 
> But.....
> 
> An EMP attack.....
> 
> and sit back and wait for us to die and kill ourselves off, then walk across I-10 and plant their flag as they go.


A similar attack on CHina, et al, serves the same purpose - and halts the invasion.


----------



## KissMy

BolshevikHunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 hydrogen bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rd, That's a possibility, but unlikely if they were planning an invasion. I am talking straight up invasion. The land would be useless to them because of the radiation if they nuked us, and their troops would be exposed to it. Even though I wouldn't put it past those red bastards to send them in afterwards anyway. ~BH
Click to expand...


*Why? - We set off 100+ nukes on our own soil & still use it just fine.*

A third of the USA has already been hit by worse nuclear fallout than Japan from 1951 to 1958 when the U.S. government conducted 90 nuclear bomb tests in the Nevada desert, sending particles contaminated with radioactive iodine-131 across much of the country.






 We set off more nuclear bombs between 1958 & 1963

My grandmother was pregnant & living in North East Missouri at that time. She went outside to get the clothes of of the clothe line because it was starting to rain. She said the rain drops were making dirty water spots on the white sheets that she was pulling off the line. She immediately fell ill, was taken to the nearest hospital had my aunt, could not stop hemorrhaging & had to have a hysterectomy. She lived until 2006 & died at 81 years of age. My aunt is still living.

There where a bunch of others that arrived at the same time with similar sudden illness. The majority of them came from the drive-in theater where a muddy rain fell on them during the movie.

*Nuking a country does not make it so radioactive that it can't be utilized.*


----------



## waltky

Granny says, "But we's already bein' invaded - by dem Hispexicans!...

*Hunters of America UNITE!!!!*
_The world's largest army_


> Added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
> 
> There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of TEXAS alone.
> 
> Allow me to restate that number. Over the last several months, Texas hunters became the sixth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran . More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania, and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home.
> 
> Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.  Hey, got to throw in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and LA., or just add any other state you want to.
> 
> The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
> 
> Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
> 
> *************************************************
> 
> And, that's why all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, want to see us disarmed.
> 
> Think about it


----------



## Control

I suppose by some miracle of a blunder by the US government, a foreign power such as China could invade the US. The force that would be 'invading' however wouldn't possibly something more than what would equate to a slight bloody nose. 

An 'effective' invasion of the US that would pose an actual danger--leaving out nukes and just thinking of conventional warfare--has been impossible by anyone in the world since practically Civil War times if not before. Even the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War would have a hard time getting to the tip of Siberia with a formidable force to pose a territorial threat to us.


----------



## idb

The easiest way would be to foreclose on your debt.
No guns required...send in the lawyers.


----------



## GHook93

There are also guys like me that own some nice guns, hit the ranges often, ski shoot a few times a year and hit the paint ball fields a few times a year.

I got a Saiga 12 (2, 5, 12 mag and 12 and recently purchased 30 round barrel), 9mm XDM and a Kimber .45! 

This would be the last country you would want to invade. First, we have the largest (well one of the largest), best equiped, most technological, best trained, highly experienced, best lead militaries in the world! Second, we have few well equip state militias. These militias are better than many countries. Third, we have an army citizenry. Don't underestimate that. It would cause extreme headaches to any invading country. Fourth, we have the 2nd large nuke stockpile in the world. Fifth, we have such a large country that occuping it would be a ginourmous task. Sixth, we are he most industrialize country in the world. As we did in WW II, we could mass produce weapons of war quicker and more efficient than any other country out there including China.  



waltky said:


> Granny says, "But we's already bein' invaded - by dem Hispexicans!...
> 
> *Hunters of America UNITE!!!!*
> _The world's largest army_
> 
> 
> 
> Added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
> 
> There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of TEXAS alone.
> 
> Allow me to restate that number. Over the last several months, Texas hunters became the sixth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran . More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania, and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home.
> 
> Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.  Hey, got to throw in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and LA., or just add any other state you want to.
> 
> The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
> 
> Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
> 
> *************************************************
> 
> And, that's why all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, want to see us disarmed.
> 
> Think about it
Click to expand...


----------



## jalbs

GHook93 said:


> (1) They could nuke similuteously about 25 of our largest cities.
> (2) Neutralize our Airforce and nuclear bomb stockpiles
> (3) Cripple our army
> (4) Knock our our communicatons
> (5) Kill our leaders
> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup



You are so wrong I had to laugh:

1. we have nukes and wouldnt wait for bases to be hit to use them. Not to mention the SSBN subs that are still always on patrol at non disclosed location with 24 nuclear missles onboard.

2. we have the best airforce in the world not to mention stockpiled planes from f16's to f4's

3. America has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world with sonething like 350 million high quality guns.

4. We have manys means of communication besides your iphone. CB, radio, short and long wave.

5. That is why we have chain of command. 

6. no need to regroup as previously mentioned americans are armed and not afraid to defend the country.

You really dont know anything about history or the US military


----------



## Wroberson

They only have 1397 warplanes as of 2009. Man to Man combat they have 4-1 advantage but not everyone would have a gun.  I'll have to add the poor materials and workmanship China is historically known for.  Not to mention how many duds I get on the 4th of July in my firework collection.  Still it would  be a battle to end all battles and I believe the American People will prevail.  I don't think lives could be saved with nukes anymore.  Once the initial attack was repelled, I don't think the USSR would allow US Warplanes to use their airspace to attack China.

I think the best option is to close the border and reduce immigration.  Always have, always will.


----------



## uscitizen

The economic invasion is well underway.


----------



## Rozman

SFC Ollie said:


> There is no way they could take us by surprise. It would take bit of transportation that Russia has to get enough troops to force a landing, And we would take out at least half before they even got here. This isn't 1945. We have eyes everywhere.
> 
> And China's Navy couldn't take Hawaii.



They were able to do it in that movie Red Dawn....
The Russians and Cubans of all people kicked our ass...
It was up to Patrick Swayze and a group of High School kids to conquer 
the invaders...

Now that would not be possible because all our HS kids are wearing their
pants hip hop style...way down below their ass...They can barely walk now.
You want them to run????


----------



## whitehall

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



Only a Bolshevik hunter would try to make a case that the world's last super power needs to worry about being invaded by 3rd world nut cases like Russia and Mexico or maybe Cuba. The Bolshevik left wing is well aware that the only way to conquer the greatest Country on the globe is from within while we spend taxpayer funds buying toys for fat assed Pentagon generals.


----------



## mememe

whitehall said:


> Only a Bolshevik hunter would try to make a case that the world's last super power needs to worry about being invaded by 3rd world nut cases like Russia and Mexico or maybe Cuba. The Bolshevik left wing is well aware that the only way to conquer the greatest Country on the globe is from within while we spend taxpayer funds buying toys for fat assed Pentagon generals.



1. "the most aggressive" does not mean "the greatest". It takes more than a big stick to be great.

2. The reason no one is attempting to invade US is simple: THERE IS NO REASON to do so. And if the last decade taught us anything, -- thanks to its own foreign and home policies, the US will disappear up its own arrse.


----------



## Shell

The U.S. can be invaded, for many years other troops from foreign countries have been training on our terrain. Not to mention the fact that they are trying to get rid of the NRA. But we are our own undoing, going in and making war on false assumptions of weapons of mass destruction which by the way we sold to the other countries. Due to our greed on oil instead of opening our oil rigs back up we are fighting countries to take theirs. So one quote my father always told me "Is it begins when the head reaches the tail " well ladies and gents we are the tail. We should be standing up and taking care of our own people instead of playing mother hen to other countries. Who in which were making it long before we decide Ah we can help you .............


----------



## Indofred

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Any opinions? ~BH



Mexico would simply increase the supply of drugs and wait for the US army not to care who invaded.


----------



## mememe

Shell said:


> playing mother hen to other countries.



... democratic world can deal with dictatorships in sovereign nations quickly, without without violence and within international laws. (J. Timoshenko former Ukrainian PM)


----------



## Katzndogz

What's "invading"?    If you mean hostile army marching in, the nation is far too large for that.   Buying it, block by block and slowly replacing the political and judicial processes is far more likely.   The city I used to live in has been almost entirely bought up by Chinese interests.   My husband once said to me that one day we would wake up to find LA harbor filled with Chinese warships.   I said "By then, no one will care".


----------



## Indofred

There is no need or advantage in an invasion of the US but loads of disadvantages.

The US government needs to be told it can't continue with its murderous foreign policy but not in that way.
I did form what I believe would be a viable plan to change that policy. Perhaps I'll submit it to the Iranian government.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

As long as there are foreign idiots who believe they can dictate what we can/cannot say in our own country our foreign policy is probably not murderous enough.


----------



## MHunterB

There is a bumper sticker I've seen:

*Russia:  If you liked Finland, you'll love East Texas*

I believe this has already been well-explained by previous posters.


----------



## Indofred

9thIDdoc said:


> As long as there are foreign idiots who believe they can dictate what we can/cannot say in our own country our foreign policy is probably not murderous enough.



Nice post.
It's a bit of a pity it's the US that invades/interferes with other countries or it'd be clever as well.


----------



## mememe

9thIDdoc said:


> As long as there are foreign idiots who believe they can dictate what we can/cannot say in our own country our foreign policy is probably not murderous enough.



Are you posting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Serbia, Belarus, Libya, Slovakia, Slovenia or Bulgaria?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

No, are you?


----------



## mememe

9thIDdoc said:


> No, are you?



I'm just trying to figure out what country do you have in mind when saying "As long as there are foreign idiots who believe they can dictate *what we can/cannot say in our own country*...".


----------



## 9thIDdoc

United States of America


----------



## mememe

9thIDdoc said:


> United States of America



Oh...

Then, in what way, shape or form did Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, Libya, etc. dictated what YOU can/cannot say in YOUR own country -- US?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"Then, in what way, shape or form did Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, Libya, etc. dictated what YOU can/cannot say in YOUR own country -- US?"_

I haven't made any claim that they have. I was thinking of Islamic fanatics.


----------



## beagle9

BolshevikHunter said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to invade us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. Just having fun discussing it. What's your guess? ~BH
Click to expand...

Here is what I think of it all, where as if it is a new game/world found in one who wants to attack us, by somehow finally outdoing the technology aspect of it all, then that will be the newest cold war front in which we have been in for quite sometime now (no surprise). Once this happens (the tech barrier breach or rather a one up on happens upon the technology field), it could then signal go time for the one who gets the upper hand in the tech race, as to be found against America out in the world or against her shoreline if not careful, and this in order to break through the first lines of defense that most countries are using technology to protect now in the world. These lines are based upon military technology as is used these days as a deterant in first line defense, and not simply physial obstacles like Germany used to stop our beach landings back in the old days.

We are in a cyber technology race/war possibly to the finish line I do think in the world today, and who ever gets their first, or breaks the technology first of the otherside, possibly could act out if wanted to against the other all depending. We must stay one step ahead or we may get caught with our britches down if not careful in the future. Many things have changed since world war two, and even our fighting force has changed big time since then, so we need to really focus on where we are at always in the world, especially in a world that is still filled with dangers and war mongers who are not to be taken lightly. Allowing or building up other nations to unsafe levels is a foolish thing by us (imho), and I just hope that we havn't played the fool in it all, because if we have, then who knows what lerks around the corner or in the darkness awaiting us to finally blink ?

Our arrogance is probably going to be our achillies heel if we aren't careful, where as we have put all our faith in technology, even though we still needed to keep the manual overide switch still in operation at all times.


----------



## SFC Ollie

We've already surrendered space technology to the Russians.........


----------



## Unkotare

GHook93 said:


> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup






Invade how, exactly?


----------



## Unkotare

Wroberson said:


> I don't think the USSR would allow US Warplanes to use their airspace.






The 'what' now?


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> And if the last decade taught us anything, -- thanks to its own foreign and home policies, the US will disappear up its own arrse.





Um, when did the last decade 'teach' us that?


----------



## Unkotare

Shell said:


> instead of playing mother hen to other countries. .............





We are not doing that.


----------



## Unkotare

Katzndogz said:


> The city I used to live in has been almost entirely bought up by Chinese interests.   My husband once said to me that one day we would wake up to find LA harbor filled with Chinese warships.   I said "By then, no one will care".





You're an idiot. Go back to art class.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> I did form what I believe would be a viable plan to change that policy. Perhaps I'll submit it to the Iranian government.





Yeah, you do that, genius.


----------



## American Horse

Douger said:


> They don't need to. You've already been invaded by Internationalist Nazi's. Don't you read the news ? Take a look at your piece of shit govt. The funny part is you assholes actually voted for it.



It's great to know we have smart asses like you to get us up to speed.  Let me ask you a question; have you served in the military douger?
Just wondering


----------



## American Horse

rightwinger said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is moot.
> 
> "Conventional warfare" is a dinosaur, whose only continued purpose is occupation.
> 
> And having the capability to "nuke the shit out of anyone" does not mean there aren't 50 countries/organizations around the world who have, or will soon have the capability to bring us to our knees without ever setting foot anywhere near our shores.
> 
> In the future, ALL wars that are fought to win will attack infrastructures, and not the armies or the citizens. And there are VERY few countries on the face of this planet more vulnerable to that type of attack than the USA.
> 
> True story, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A computer virus or worm would be an interesting strategy.   But the logistics of physically invading and occupying the US would be formidable
Click to expand...


Haven't you been paying attention to how our infrastructure can be taken out with an EMP?  That could be done from two sub launched missiles, one Atlantic and one Pacific launched. It's a good possibility that  a Chinese ship but most likely sub made a launch north up our Pacific coast a year or so ago (how the time flies when you are having fun).


----------



## American Horse

rdean said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 hydrogen bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rd, That's a possibility, but unlikely if they were planning an invasion. I am talking straight up invasion. The land would be useless to them because of the radiation if they nuked us, and their troops would be exposed to it. Even though I wouldn't put it past those red bastards to send them in afterwards anyway. ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had to come from somewhere.  They come here to invade, they will have no home to go back to.
Click to expand...


For all the Dr Strangeloves and Fail Safe scenarios that speak of American preparedness, we would hold our fire as the civilized course of action. People were so surprised by our lack of capacity to quickly resolve an attack by civilian airliners on Wash DC and NYC that conspiracy theories have become the style fostered  from rampant cynicism.


----------



## American Horse

rdean said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the native indians, ...  and all the other tribes of armed citizens that were blown away by the british/french/spanish/portugese colonization. And no, we ve not invade Pakistan because we currently give them money. And because officially we call them our "allies". Not because of "armed militia"
> 
> Their main defence was armed militia/tribes. Militia don't win wars, armies with advanced equipment do. The germans rolled over almost every country in Europe with their tanks, do you really believe that armed militia could ve stopped them?
> 
> Modern warfare is for state equiped armies, not for militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not familiar with EMP?
> 
> The next "major war" will not target humans directly. It will target those things we have taught ourselves we "cannot live without." An effective EMP attack (or HAARP, as pointed out above) would result in about 1/3 of the US population dying within 6 months, the remaining 2/3 left to fight amongst themselves for survival. Absolute chaos, and nationalized anarchy. We would annihilate ourselves for the attacking force. Sure, we might have the ability to nuke them into oblivion as well (if we can react quickly enough), but it wouldn't save us from ourselves. Eventually, someone will take that bet. Many are already franticly working towards that opportunity.
> 
> "Modern warfare" is for anyone with a true desire to win a war, at all costs, and a handful of WMDs with the capability of delivering them. Other than the WMDs, "modern warfare" has come full circle to the first war ever fought: defeat the enemy at any cost, there are no rules, no treaties, no "collateral damage." All is fair.
> 
> The domino effect is the wave of modern warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A March 1989 Incident: A lesser solar storm caused the Canadian power grid to go down for over nine hours. Resulting damages and loss of revenue estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> A 1994 Incident: A solar storm caused major malfunctions to two communications satellites.
> 
> The Sun: Sunspots - Solar Flares - Solar Storms - Solar Max - EMP - CME
> 
> More likely are solar flares or storms.  Electrical grids can be built so they won't be affected, but that won't help us.  Our grid is old and outdated.  Eric Cantor, in the bill he proposed to stop spending, slashes any funds for improving America's infrastructure.  Try to explain "solar storms" to a Republican.  They are about as likely to believe that as "Climate change" and "evolution".
> 
> We know about it.  It's going to happen.  Republicans will stop us from doing anything about it.  Then they will try to blame it on scientists for not making them believe or Democrats.  The Republican Party of "take no responsibility".
Click to expand...

Solar storms aren't the issue.  They can be anticipated because we have monitoring satellites to spot them, and they are aimed phenomenon and require timing to produce a direct hit. Republicans have done nothing to discourage planning and defensive measures against their effects on the grid.

An all out EMP attack would shatter the entire interconnected grid on the macro scale and automobiles and computer all other electronic devices on a local scale. That's a concern I've seen liberals poo poo and conversatives take seriously.


----------



## beagle9

SFC Ollie said:


> We've already surrendered space technology to the Russians.........


What will they use it for later down the line you think, and is it military technology that we have surrendered in which you speak of (star wars type stuff), known from the Reagan Days maybe?


----------



## mememe

9thIDdoc said:


> _"Then, in what way, shape or form did Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, Libya, etc. dictated what YOU can/cannot say in YOUR own country -- US?"_
> 
> I haven't made any claim that they have. I was thinking of Islamic fanatics.



But you trashed all the mentioned countries! Why?


----------



## SillyWabbit

Unkotare said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the USSR would allow US Warplanes to use their airspace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'what' now?
Click to expand...


That thing

Over there

And he's right


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the last decade taught us anything, -- thanks to its own foreign and home policies, the US will disappear up its own arrse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, when did the last decade 'teach' us that?
Click to expand...


As you type on this forum... 

Unless, you are oblivious to economic, political and social changes within your own country.


----------



## SillyWabbit

mememe said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Then, in what way, shape or form did Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, Libya, etc. dictated what YOU can/cannot say in YOUR own country -- US?"_
> 
> I haven't made any claim that they have. I was thinking of Islamic fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you trashed all the mentioned countries! Why?
Click to expand...


Is it a puzzle? I don't see a fucking sentence in that mess.

Beat up on me all you wish: but that shit look like random key strokes.


----------



## Politico

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*



Because it's not 1800 anymore. You guys are really having a 12 page discussion on this?


----------



## SillyWabbit

Unkotare said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invade how, exactly?
Click to expand...


So specific

Here, Mr. Weisenheimer:








They've been amongst us for years.


----------



## Politico

Oh yeah now we're talking. Shot ome hogs last weekend. Gonna bbq some ribs later today and smoke some bacon.


----------



## idb

SFC Ollie said:


> We've already surrendered space technology to the Russians.........



It's the free market, and globalisation in action.
That's a good thing, right?


----------



## Unkotare

SillyWabbit said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the USSR would allow US Warplanes to use their airspace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'what' now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thing
> 
> Over there
> 
> And he's right
Click to expand...



What thing, where? There is no USSR.


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the last decade taught us anything, -- thanks to its own foreign and home policies, the US will disappear up its own arrse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, when did the last decade 'teach' us that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you type on this forum...
> 
> Unless, you are oblivious to economic, political and social changes within your own country.
Click to expand...





That's not an answer.


----------



## Unkotare

SillyWabbit said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (6) And invade before the Americans could regroup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invade how, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So specific
Click to expand...




China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.


----------



## American Horse

Unkotare said:


> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invade how, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I think you're wrong there about Taiwan, they could, and they could fire off an EMP attack that would push  America back to a dark age and barbarism.  That might make a land occupation of US territory in N.A. completely unnecessary.


----------



## Unkotare

American Horse said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So specific
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong there about Taiwan, they could,.
Click to expand...



Not right now they couldn't. Keep your imagination in check.


----------



## American Horse

Unkotare said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong there about Taiwan, they could,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not right now they couldn't. Keep your imagination in check.
Click to expand...


It was lack of imagination that brought us 9/11 not once but twice.


----------



## Unkotare

Do you even understand the topic?


----------



## mememe

SillyWabbit said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Then, in what way, shape or form did Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, Libya, etc. dictated what YOU can/cannot say in YOUR own country -- US?"_
> 
> I haven't made any claim that they have. I was thinking of Islamic fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you trashed all the mentioned countries! Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a puzzle? I don't see a fucking sentence in that mess.
> 
> Beat up on me all you wish: but that shit look like random key strokes.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you need to read our dialogue from the start.


----------



## Meathead

To actually invade the US, those countries would have to station troops in either Canada or Mexico. Not going to happen. Any seaborne invasion would be easily spotted from the moment ships left their piers and be vaporized  thousands of miles from Hawaii or either coast.


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, when did the last decade 'teach' us that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you type on this forum...
> 
> Unless, you are oblivious to economic, political and social changes within your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer.
Click to expand...


It is. If you need someone to explain what an economic, political and social shit US is in, then you are either blind or ...


----------



## mememe

American Horse said:


> It was lack of imagination that brought us 9/11 not once but twice.



???

Is that what your elites told you?


----------



## mememe

WHY would anyone NEED to INVADE the US?????!!!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you type on this forum...
> 
> Unless, you are oblivious to economic, political and social changes within your own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is. If you need someone to explain what an economic, political and social shit US is in, then you are either blind or ...
Click to expand...



So you have no answer. Just say so and stop wasting time, idiot.


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is. If you need someone to explain what an economic, political and social shit US is in, then you are either blind or ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no answer. Just say so and stop wasting time, idiot.
Click to expand...


I gave you my answer. That it is not to your satisfaction is a different matter.


----------



## beagle9

Unkotare said:


> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invade how, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with anything being huge anymore in numbers there of, but more to do with technology and precise delivery/deployment systems, and a cyber war machine, intel and other that is second to none. Once these things are totally won by anyone wanting to use them for war, then it's go time for many who have a problem with anyone elses success in life, beliefs in life, cultures lived and etc. Resources is another huge issue for nations around the world, and that has always been a motivator for war in many cases, even though humantarion issues were the excuses made for, as was found to be used as the motivation in most cases, even though it was other reasons that were later found to be the case.


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is. If you need someone to explain what an economic, political and social shit US is in, then you are either blind or ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no answer. Just say so and stop wasting time, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer.
Click to expand...




No you didn't. Go play games somewhere else.


----------



## Unkotare

beagle9 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So specific
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with anything being huge anymore in numbers there of, .
Click to expand...




If you are talking about invading a country the size of the US it sure as hell does.


----------



## rdean

If another country invaded, they would have to take the Confederate South.  It's a "package deal".  Too many drunk, armed, ignorant Rednecks who hate immigrants.


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no answer. Just say so and stop wasting time, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. Go play games somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I am not in your kitchen.

Once more, in case your reading abilities did not allow you to finish reading the second sentence:
I gave you my answer. *That it is not to your satisfaction is a different matter.*

And if you don't see that US is in deep economic, political and social shit, and that shit is getting deeper -- I am not your optician.


----------



## American Horse

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. Go play games somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not in your kitchen.
> 
> Once more, in case your reading abilities did not allow you to finish reading the second sentence:
> I gave you my answer. *That it is not to your satisfaction is a different matter.*
> 
> And if you don't see that US is in deep economic, political and social shit, and that shit is getting deeper -- I am not your optician.
Click to expand...


You've got to understand, Unk will only entertain a land invasion of America. Anything else is irrelevant and off topic.


----------



## idb

China already owns the US.
They just need to send in the Repo men.


----------



## HUGGY

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



*Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*

Because you locked the back door.  You did lock the back door didn't you???!!!!


----------



## beagle9

Unkotare said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> China doesn't yet have the capacity to deploy their full military force all the way to Taiwan. To and throughout the huge United States? Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with anything being huge anymore in numbers there of, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about invading a country the size of the US it sure as hell does.
Click to expand...

You speak in numbers, but (modern military technology) just as it was proved out during the Falkland Islands war, wins over numbers everytime. The length of that war was 74 days and it was over.. The Egyption and Israeli War was also a fast war (7 days and it was over), in which was won due to new technology and a strategy based on that technology. Right now nations are closing the gap fast in the world, and it is getting harder and harder to stay ahead of them, so I guess the best defense in Obama's mind while President, is to run up and give them all a big ole hug.....LOL


----------



## beagle9

idb said:


> China already owns the US.
> They just need to send in the Repo men.


Don't know how they own anything here, because they have been getting paid by US corporations for using their land, water, people, resources and more over there for years now, in order to create cheap products to sell to the world, and especially back to the U.S. under American brand names even though they were built in China. The Chineese government has been capitializing off of American corporations for years and years now, so if anything we should see what they have loaned us as being a rebate of some of that money back in which we had paid to them over the years.


----------



## HUGGY

BolshevikHunter said:


> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH



Why would any country want to invade us?  For a few pennies on the dollar republicans are happy to practically give any foreign country, that will line their pockets, all of our natural resources.  You want our oil?  No problem.  Christ we will PAY YOU to take it!!! Our coal?  Not a hitch as far as I can see. Short on gasoline?  No worries...the stupid Americans will pay the difference at our pumps for the shortages you have created here.


----------



## freedombecki

HUGGY said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?*
> 
> Winger, You keep saying that "US can't be invaded". I tend to lean more towards that assumption, but let's discuss it anyway because it's an interesting subject.
> 
> We all know the resistance anyone who invaded America would face just by the armed citizens alone would be a force to rekon with.  After all, It was our former enemy Isoruko Yamamato who once said _"If we were to attempt to invade The United States, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."._
> 
> However, As far as the success of an initial invasion, why is that not possible if other Nations assisted China? Like say Russia? Or maybe Mexico assisting and allowing them to invade from the South? After all, We took our Navy all the way to an Island of the coast of Europe, and managed to land and conquer Nazi Germany even though we were 3156 miles away? Any opinions? ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any country want to invade us?  For a few pennies on the dollar republicans are happy to practically give any foreign country, that will line their pockets, all of our natural resources.  You want our oil?  No problem.  Christ we will PAY YOU to take it!!! Our coal?  Not a hitch as far as I can see. Short on gasoline?  No worries...the stupid Americans will pay the difference at our pumps for the shortages you have created here.
Click to expand...

Project much?

They don't want to invade here because us women talk back.


----------



## idb

beagle9 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> China already owns the US.
> They just need to send in the Repo men.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how they own anything here, because they have been getting paid by US corporations for using their land, water, people, resources and more over there for years now, in order to create cheap products to sell to the world, and especially back to the U.S. under American brand names even though they were built in China. The Chineese government has been capitializing off of American corporations for years and years now, so if anything we should see what they have loaned us as being a rebate of some of that money back in which we had paid to them over the years.
Click to expand...


What?
Are you proposing that you reneg on your debts?
What will that do to your credit rating?


----------



## Unkotare

beagle9 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with anything being huge anymore in numbers there of, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about invading a country the size of the US it sure as hell does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You speak in numbers, but (modern military technology) just as it was proved out during the Falkland Islands war, wins over numbers everytime.
Click to expand...




You misunderstand the numbers in question.


(and the British were humiliated in the Malvinas because they were inept).


----------



## Unkotare

freedombecki said:


> They don't want to invade here because us women talk back.





You think Chinese women don't talk back?


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> I gave you my answer. .





No, you did not. You have been avoiding it all along.


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not. .
Click to expand...


I gave you my answer. That it is not to your satisfaction is a different matter.

And if you don't see that US is in deep economic, political and social shit, and that shit is getting deeper -- I am not your optician.


----------



## Unkotare

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer. .
Click to expand...




The fact that you keep avoiding the question says a lot about you.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you keep avoiding the question says a lot about you.
Click to expand...


mememe is a dumb fucking c*nt.


----------



## Katzndogz

idb said:


> China already owns the US.
> They just need to send in the Repo men.



More than that.  China has purchased the loyalty of huge hunks of the American public who, in many cases, owe their jobs and housing to China or Chinese interests.


----------



## mememe

Unkotare said:


> The fact that you keep avoiding .



I gave you my answer. That it is not to your satisfaction is a different matter.

And if you don't see that US is in deep economic, political and social shit, and that shit is getting deeper -- I am not your optician.


----------



## mememe

High_Gravity said:


> mememe is a dumb fucking c*nt.



Tell your doctor to up your meds.


----------



## MHunterB

Silly Mimi keeps reading the 'Pravda' toilet paper as though it's a bona fide news source......


----------



## MHunterB

Digital History

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1930s - William H. Young, Nancy K. Young - Google Books

Transcript . The Great Famine . American Experience . WGBH | PBS


----------



## MHunterB

mememe said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> mememe is a dumb fucking c*nt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell your doctor to up your meds.
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed!  Reading the 'Pravda' swill so faithfully parroted by Mimi here does require a large dosage of anti-nausea medicine......


----------



## mememe

MHunterB said:


> Reading the 'Pravda' .



  Indeed... I guess, you haven't got a clue that "Pravda" currently is financed from US!!!! 

MHunter, you are an idiot!


----------



## MHunterB

And your source for that information about 'Pravda' would be?


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you my answer. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you keep avoiding the question says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mememe is a dumb fucking c*nt.
Click to expand...



That's what it says about him! Exactly!


----------



## tjvh

uscitizen said:


> Why would anyone want to invade us?



Why don't you ask Illegal Immigrants?  All that free stuff.


----------



## waltky

uscitizen wrote: _Why would anyone want to invade us?_

Good question...

... we're the biggest debtor nation on the face of the earth...

... would be better to just let us implode on our own.


----------



## mememe

MHunterB said:


> And your source for that information about 'Pravda' would be?



You are an idiot, MHunterB. You need to do your research BEFORE displaying your brain malfunction!


----------



## MHunterB

Mimi, invective has no information nor truth value.

So I'll just suppose you pulled that 'info' out of your cloacal sphincter after all.


----------



## mememe

MHunterB said:


> Mimi, ...
> 
> So I'll just suppose ....



Yeah, MHooter, you keep "supposing": your rant about the paper was bang on the money!


----------



## MHunterB

Not that it matters:  in Mimi's case the cloacal and oral orifices are pretty well interchangeable.


----------



## mememe

MHunterB said:


> Not that it matters:



Of course, whatever you hoot doesn't matter. Go on, hoot some more about "Pravda"! I enjoyed it immensely!


----------

