# China can field an Army of 200 Million Men



## peace2011

Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.


----------



## sparky

and i hear they're great chums with Iran....


----------



## peace2011

sparky said:


> and i hear they're great chums with Iran....


I agree with the estimate of China's immense "militia." There are tens of millions of young men and women moving around the countryside looking for work, living in temp shelters, footloose and with a deep anger about their fate of being shut out of the ancient, sacred family tradition they share with all Chinese, The unattached mobs of young men have always been tender boxes. This is so immense it is hard to grasp its implications. Since China is allying with Russia, Pakistan, Iran, and central Asia with all of that oil and gas, it's a potentially great global shift, if they can solve their bureaucracy problems. 

The Chinese et al. will probably buy gold quietly and slowly to avoid rapid price hikes. It will be hard to detect directly, but people like Soros and Faber might have sources to watch. This could become a massive move toward a new currency base to escape the U.S. Fed's tsunami of trash paper and its Global Inflation Bubble.


----------



## Avatar4321

While it's true that they may be able to field an army that big, you also have to remember that they are currently keeping an population far bigger under their rule of thumb. I would suggest that such a thing may not be possible. It's impossible to control that many people and they are in danger of civil unrest if they push the wrong way.


----------



## editec

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.


 
Yes, and the USA can field 35,000 nuclear weapons.

But don't worrry about China's military might, its their economic might that is going to make all the difference.


----------



## pinqy

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world



Not quite.  Yes they have a potentially huge army, but how are they going to send them anywhere?  By sea?  They don't have the tonnage.  One of the reasons they haven't gone after Taiwan is they don't have the Naval superiority to pull it off.


----------



## Zander

The rise of China is not a threat, but a rare opportunity. Make the best of it, or continue to tremble in fear like a coward.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

While this is theoreticly possible, the number they can feed and transport is far smaller.  And while they may have a huge army, most of it is used for internal population control.

While the US army is a great deal smaller, none of it is used for internal control. And we can put armies anywhere in the world and have them fed and totally mission capable pretty much any time we want.  China has troubles with the logistics train even in country.    And China does not feel very confident about its military even being mission capable in country.


----------



## blastoff

It'll be like shootin' 200 million fish in a barrel.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



China's huge army is its weakness. It is an issue of quality over quantity. They have to move those men, as well as feed them. China can make trouble sure, but they lack when stacked against just about any other military on the planet.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

I remember back in the discussions on Gulf War I when Iraq was billed as having a huge army, a large part of which were veterans of the 10 year war with Iran.

They were taken to pieces and nearly eliminated in the course of 6 weeks.

Gulf War II went even faster.

The Chinese don't have an effective air arm.   The navy is even less of an issue.

The only reason China has that big of an army is because they are afraid of their population.


----------



## Sallow

Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.

The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.

The economic domination, however, is suspect.

And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.


----------



## daveman

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world...


How?


----------



## daveman

blastoff said:


> It'll be like shootin' 200 million fish in a barrel.



Yup.  Cannon fodder.  Most will throw their spears and die gloriously.


----------



## Sallow

Baruch Menachem said:


> I remember back in the discussions on Gulf War I when Iraq was billed as having a huge army, a large part of which were veterans of the 10 year war with Iran.
> 
> They were taken to pieces and nearly eliminated in the course of 6 weeks.
> 
> Gulf War II went even faster.
> 
> The Chinese don't have an effective air arm.   The navy is even less of an issue.
> 
> The only reason China has that big of an army is because they are afraid of their population.



China's military interests at this point are defense of their territory..something they are more then capable of doing.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Sallow said:


> Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.
> 
> The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.
> 
> The economic domination, however, is suspect.
> 
> And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.



Yeah, fucking Bush sent all the jobs for those light bulbs that by lay we have to use now over there, and those wind mills to. 300 us jobs on that deal and 35,000 for China. Oh wait, That was Obama. Don't get me wrong, The last four Presidents have sent all our jobs over seas. Even the Libertarians darling Ron Paul supports NAFTA, and wants to keep it. Don't get sucked into the R, D bull shit, they are all crooked mother fuckers.


----------



## Dutch

A 15000 lb daisy cutter would even things out real quick.


----------



## blastoff

daveman said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be like shootin' 200 million fish in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Cannon fodder.  Most will throw their spears and die gloriously.
Click to expand...


Whether Patton ever really said it or not I don't know, but it sure sounded good coming from George C. Scott:  "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."


----------



## JakeStarkey

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



They can field an army of 200 million in  China and just outside of its borders.

It does not have the infrastructure or other resources to support any sizeable force far outside of China or over seas.  If it did, Taiwan would be under mainland control decades ago.


----------



## daveman

blastoff said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be like shootin' 200 million fish in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Cannon fodder.  Most will throw their spears and die gloriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether Patton ever really said it or not I don't know, but it sure sounded good coming from George C. Scott:  "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Click to expand...

  That's the whole idea.  Kill people and break their stuff.


----------



## xsited1

peace2011 said:


> China can field an Army of 200 Million Men



Since Chinese men are so much skinnier and shorter than American men, it takes about 4 of them to equal one American soldier so it's more like an army of 50 million men.


----------



## grunt11b

Sallow said:


> Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.
> 
> The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.
> 
> The economic domination, however, is suspect.
> 
> And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.



 I'm sure it had nothing to do with the left raising capital gains taxes to the point to where companies had no choice but to pull up roots and ship jobs to places like China,Taiwan,Vietnam for the cheaper labor. I am also sure it had nothing to do with the leftist inside the labor movements "Unions" who pushed at corporations from the bottom for wages way above what the employee should have been getting that chased the businesses away either right?
 And let's not forget about Bill Clinton signing the free trade act that ushered in every walmart product on the shelf right now. 
 If anyone helped the Chinese, it was the Left, not conservatives, we would rather people buy American and keep American jobs in America.


----------



## grunt11b

Sallow said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in the discussions on Gulf War I when Iraq was billed as having a huge army, a large part of which were veterans of the 10 year war with Iran.
> 
> They were taken to pieces and nearly eliminated in the course of 6 weeks.
> 
> Gulf War II went even faster.
> 
> The Chinese don't have an effective air arm.   The navy is even less of an issue.
> 
> The only reason China has that big of an army is because they are afraid of their population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's military interests at this point are defense of their territory..something they are more then capable of doing.
Click to expand...


 Especially since Obama sold them the Blue Prints to the hummer and a Stealth fighter under Clinton was shot down in Serbia in 1999. And all of a sudden China has Stealth technology:




http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8-RWw0QtwuS6tVinq2jLpUInHqpAj9NlDU5dQ0wrXguHK1sV9

 And let's not forget about the Multi Billion dollar stealth helicopter that was shot down in Pakistan During the bIn laden raid, another top secret air craft shot down under a democrat president. 
Top Secret Stealth Helicopter Program Revealed in Osama Bin Laden Raid: Experts - ABC News

 SO under the last two Democratic Presidents we have sold our Humvee blue print and lost two very important strategic stealth technology aircraft. I understand the Hummer blueprint went to help pay off debt...maybe. But I can't help but to think with all of Americas resources why could we not have those stealth fighter/helicopters wreckage secured and kept away from our enemies? We know the Serbs sold the fighter wreckage to Russis which ended up in Chinas hands, wonder where the Helo Tech went?


----------



## NYcarbineer

editec said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the USA can field 35,000 nuclear weapons.
> 
> But don't worrry about China's military might, its their economic might that is going to make all the difference.
Click to expand...


It's hard to imagine the US engaging in a nuclear weapon first use again.


----------



## rdean

It's OK.

We can field an Army of 5,000 nuclear bombs.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Don't let the propaganda or podium talk fool you, our government and the Chinese gov't are the best of pals and have been for years.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our American fascist corporatists, all righties, love China.


----------



## rightwinger

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



China might have a 200 million man Army, but their primary mission is to keep 1.5 billion Chinese in check

They are no threat to the US


----------



## peace2011

Dr.Drock said:


> our government and the Chinese gov't are the best of pals and have been for years.


China: US Waging Global Internet War to Bring Down Governments

The Chinese military has accused the US of waging a global Internet war against multiple nations in an effort to bring down governments, citing the Arab Spring revolutions as an example.

The accusations made by scholars at the Chinese military academy follow accusations by Google that Chinese offices attempted to hack Google accounts related to US government offices, officials, journalists, activists and politicians. 

Google traced the attacks to the city of Jinan known for hosting the militarys vocational school which focuses on computers and technology. The same location was also linked to an assault on Google's systems over a year ago. China has denied responsibility for both attacks.

China is now asserting however that the US is using computer tactics via the Internet to promote regime change in the Arab world and claimed to have evidence that cyber attacks originated within the United States. 

"Of late, an Internet tornado has swept across the world  massively impacting and shocking the globe. Behind all this lies the shadow of America," said an article by Ye Zheng and Zhao Baoxian, scholars from the Academy of Military Sciences. Faced with this warm up for an Internet war, every nation and military can't be passive but is making preparations to fight the Internet war.

China: US waging global Internet war &mdash; RT


----------



## peace2011

rightwinger said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are no threat to the US
> 
> 
> 
> US military to Respond with Physical Force to Cyber Attack
> 
> The Pentagons newest policy grants the US military the ability to respond to a cyber attack on government networks with physical force  equating hacking to an act of war.
> 
> This new trend has many advocates and experts worried. Hacking a government system may soon be an offence that can be retaliated against with force, even though most US government hacks are conducted by individuals and activists  not foreign governments.
> 
> Does the United States want to say were guna deter Russia with nuclear weapons because of some hackers in a Moscow internet café? asked Research fellow Benjamin H. Friedman from the Cato Institute in Washington. That sounds like an overly bellicose threat to me.
> Friedman described the assertion that a cyber attack is an act of war as preposterous. He explained that the vast majority of attacks are criminal, but have nothing to do with defense or the military  the government must recognize the difference.
> 
> He said the use of threat of military force as a deterrent is a bad idea. The risk of criminal activity of this nature is known and should be deterrent enough.
> 
> Pentagon declares war on cyber attacks &mdash; RT
> 
> Pentagon: Cyber attacks are an Act of War
> 
> The Pentagon has decided that computer-based attacks and hacking from a foreign country can now be considered acts of war.
> 
> According to a report by the Wall Street Journal the Pentagon is stiffening their approach to cyber attacks following the recent cyber attack of US military defense contractor Lockheed Martin.
> 
> According to the report, If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a use of force consideration, which could merit retaliation.
> 
> The military is said to be adapting to a changing landscape, where new technology brings new threats. Currently cyber warfare is not addressed by the Rules of Armed Conflict, since those rules are based on laws which pre-date cyber issues. International treaties like the Geneva Conventions and others which made up the rules of war cannot, the military argues, apply to cyber attacks because they were not designed to.
> 
> The United States hopes its new approach to cyber attacks will be met by a consensus from its allies.
> 
> Pentagon: Cyber attacks are an act of war &mdash; RT
Click to expand...


----------



## Sallow

Sallow said:


> Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.
> 
> The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.
> 
> The economic domination, however, is suspect.
> 
> And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.



Actually..I am wrong about this..and I just remembered..that China tried to "Annex" Vietnam after America left.

And got their asses roundly kicked.


----------



## Sallow

grunt11b said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.
> 
> The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.
> 
> The economic domination, however, is suspect.
> 
> And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it had nothing to do with the left raising capital gains taxes to the point to where companies had no choice but to pull up roots and ship jobs to places like China,Taiwan,Vietnam for the cheaper labor. I am also sure it had nothing to do with the leftist inside the labor movements "Unions" who pushed at corporations from the bottom for wages way above what the employee should have been getting that chased the businesses away either right?
> And let's not forget about Bill Clinton signing the free trade act that ushered in every walmart product on the shelf right now.
> *If anyone helped the Chinese, it was the Left, not conservatives, we would rather people buy American and keep American jobs in America*.
Click to expand...




It was George W. Bush's tax holiday on foreign profits that led the way. Not any "free trade act".


----------



## peace2011

China warned " attack on Pakistan would construed as an attack on China"

China has "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China", The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week's China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, it said.

For his part, Gilani reiterated Pakistan's support for its policy of 'One China' and said his country fully supports China on the issues of Taiwan and Tibet.

During her briefing today Jiang skirted questions about Pakistan-China signing new defence agreements. Asked about assertions by Pakistan's Ambassador to China Masood Khan before Gilani's arrival that new defence deals would be signed, she said the two sides signed agreements in economy, technology, finance and energy resources.

"As to specific cooperation, please refer to relevant companies," she said, adding that China is actively implementing pledges to help pro-disaster reconstruction and exerting utmost to help tide over difficulties."

China on Thursday said the international community "must respect" Pakistan's sovereignty, tacitly confirming reports that it has asked the US not to violate Islamabad's territorial integrity, following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Asked about reports that China has asked US during its recently concluded strategic dialogue with Washington to respect Pakistan's sovereignty as Islamabad came under heavy pressure after bin Laden's killing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu told media here that "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected."

"We believe that Pakistan has made great contribution to international counter-terrorism efforts, as well as huge sacrifices. The international community should understand and support Pakistan's efforts to restore national stability and develop its economy," she said.

China asks US to respect Pak's sovereignty, independence - Economic Times

Obama: would raid Pakistan again if militant found

President Barack Obama would approve a new incursion into Pakistan if the United States found another leading militant there, he said in a BBC interview broadcast on Sunday.

U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001, in a raid on his fortified compound in Pakistan on May 2, ending a manhunt for the world's most-wanted militant.

Asked if Obama would do the same again if the United States discovered another "high-value target" in Pakistan or another country, such as a senior al Qaeda member or Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he said he would "take the shot."

"We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan. But we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies' people, we can't allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action," Obama told the BBC.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/22/us-obama-pakistan-idUSTRE74L0U320110522?feedType=RSS


----------



## ginscpy

Didn't seem to deter the Japs when they invaded/occupied China  ....


----------



## mike beev

It isn't a Chinese army we should be concerned about; our concerns should be their building a competative submarine fleet.  In real war games, submarines always sink aircraft carriers.  If we ever go to military war with them, it will be a naval & air war in the Pacific and because we were stupid enough to get between them and the Spratleys or them and Taiwan.  It is their backyard, and they will demand to rule it their own way.  But since we are committing economic suicide, there will be no need for them to fight us; we will colapse from within.  Any doubts?  Look at the balance of trade.


----------



## editec

Sallow said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last country that the Chinese invaded was Korea..and basically because there were US troops in that country.
> 
> The Chinese, believe it or not, have no interest in military domination of the world.
> 
> The economic domination, however, is suspect.
> 
> And the US is happily helping in that endeavor..thanks to conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..I am wrong about this..and I just remembered..that China tried to "Annex" Vietnam after America left.
> 
> And got their asses roundly kicked.
Click to expand...

 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECbhcqdIN5g"]YouTube - &#x202a;China - Vietnam War 1979 ( Battle of Cao Bang)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## RAYLIEN

i believe that u.s. is our true ally,our defender and our mother. hail ye, oh america, the land of the brave and the land which was choosen by god to become a defender and crusher of any nation who is showing thier power to the smaller and poorer country such as philippines MY BELOVED COUNTRY.. HELP US AMERICA!!!! I AM RAYLIEN GARGANERA, FILIPINO!!! WILLING TO DIE FOR AMERICA AND PHILIPPINES!!!! FUCK YOU CHINESE COWARD CHICKEN SHITT!!!!


----------



## waltky

Granny says purt soon dey gonna come over here an' we gonna be eatin' fish & riceheads...

*US Says Chinas Military Expanding Rapidly*
_Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 - The U.S. Defense Department says China is on pace to achieve its goal of building a modern military by 2020, a move it says could potentially destabilize the Asia-Pacific region._


> In its annual assessment to Congress, the Pentagon Wednesday said China is rapidly modernizing its military equipment and achieved several advances in the past year. It noted that China made a test flight of a new stealth fighter, conducted sea trials of its first aircraft carrier and made improvements in satellite technology and cyber warfare.
> 
> U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer said Wednesday the Chinese military buildup could have a destabilizing effect on the region. He said it increases the risk of misunderstandings and miscalculations and may contribute to regional tensions and anxieties.
> 
> The report said Chinese leaders continue to prepare for a potential conflict with Taiwan, but also now see a broader role for China's military.  The Pentagon estimates that China spent more than $160 billion for its military in 2010.  China says its military buildup is for self-defense and has accused U.S. officials of trying to portray its armed forces as a threat.
> 
> Source


----------



## Baruch Menachem

They need 199,975,000 of them to keep a lid on so the place doesn't blow up in their faces.  That is the problem with all oppressive regimes.  They have to spend most of their budget on political repression, they don't have any resources at all for actual national defense.


----------



## Jerminator

They might have 200 million men for an army, but if they want to attack someone, what do the soldiers do, walk there?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Chinese armed forces are no threat to us here.


----------



## Flagwavrusa

pinqy said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite.  Yes they have a potentially huge army, but how are they going to send them anywhere?  By sea?  They don't have the tonnage.  One of the reasons they haven't gone after Taiwan is they don't have the Naval superiority to pull it off.
Click to expand...


They have a better way to transport their surplus population, it's called immigration. There are millions of Chicom expats in America, and  who knows how many of them are sleeper agents waiting for hostilities break so that they can clog up sewer lines, puncture tires, kill peoples' pets, and engage in unimaginable acts of minor sabotage designed to frustrate the system and sap the American Peoples' will to fight. In the event of a war with China the government should be prepared to round them up, the same they did the Japanese in WW2, and intern them in FEMA camps until the war is over.


----------



## Douger

Baruch Menachem said:


> I remember back in the discussions on Gulf War I when Iraq was billed as having a huge army, a large part of which were veterans of the 10 year war with Iran.
> 
> They were taken to pieces and nearly eliminated in the course of 6 weeks.
> 
> Gulf War II went even faster.
> 
> The Chinese don't have an effective air arm.   The navy is even less of an issue.
> 
> The only reason China has that big of an army is because they are afraid of their population.


That's true. We all know the meatheads of the world would shoot their own grandmother if ordered to.


----------



## waltky

Granny thinkin' `bout movin' to China an' gettin' her a nice young Chinaman boytoy...

*Chinas One-Child Policy Expected to Produce 40-Million Surplus Males by 2020*
_October 13, 2011  Nine years from now, there may be 40 million more men of marriageable age than there are women in China.  That population imbalance, caused by Chinas one-child policy, has adverse social and security implications, says an annual congressional report on China._


> By 2020, the number of Chinese males of marriageable age may exceed the number of Chinese females of marriageable age by 30 to 40 million, says the 2011 report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, a group headed by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.).  Chinas one-child policy, implemented in 1979, is directly to blame: In response to government-imposed birth limits and in keeping with a traditional cultural bias for sons, some Chinese parents choose to engage in sex-selective abortion, especially rural couples whose first child is a girl, the report says.
> 
> China implemented a ban on sex-selective abortions in 2003, but according to Rep. Smith, the practice remains widespread: The proof of it is the missing girls, Smith told a Capitol Hill news conference on Wednesday.  The report points to United Nations population statistics showing that in 2010, Chinas male-to-female sex-ratio at birth was the highest in the world, at 120 boys for every 100 girls. In August 2011, Chinese state media quoted a Chinese health official as saying that the sex imbalance is increasing.
> 
> The report says the consequences of Chinas one-child policy are vast and far-reaching.  The scarcity of women will increase their value as well as their vulnerability, boosting demand for prostitution, for example, as well as an upsurge in the kidnapping and the trafficking of women and girls.  Rep. Smith echoed this concern: Theres been a huge spike in traffickingin large measure, because of the dearth of girls.  We are going to see an ever increasing trafficking problem, directly related to a government policy of systematically exterminating the girl-child population since 1979.
> 
> The report also links Chinas surplus males to forced marriages and commercial exploitation.  The population imbalance also has security implications: Some social and political scientists argue that large numbers of surplus males could create social conditions that the Chinese government may choose to address by expanding military enlistments.  Beyond the skewed male-female ratio, Chinas one child policy  with its forced abortions and sterilizations -- is taking an emotional toll on women.  A congressional statement accompanying the report noted that approximately 500 women committed suicide each day in China in 2009.  The Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunal properly construed forced abortion as a crime against humanitynothing in human history compares to the magnitude of Chinas 31 year assault on women and children, the statement said.
> 
> Source


----------



## Moonglow

China has a 200 million man army. Do they have 200 million body bags?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

*China can field an Army of 200 Million Men *

POOF! 200M tiny dimples in radioactive glass.
And for my next trick...


----------



## hipeter924

India and Taiwan collectively can field more.Though if China tried to field 200 million soldiers, hundreds of millions of their own people would die of starvation, takes you back to the good old days of Chairman Mao and the cultural revolution.


----------



## Katzndogz

All it means is a very short war with an assured Chinese victory.  Not that many people in the US would care one way or other other. 

We DO have Rules of Engagement that lets our own troops die rather than send support.  We ARE developing a friendlier, gentler, more nurturing gay friendly military.  We've allowed ourselves to be so beaten up over using nuclear weapons the first time, this nation would never use them again.  The country is too divided.

It is not just that the United States can't win a war against the Chinese.  We can't win a war against ANYONE. We can't win a war against goatherders after ten years of fighting.  

Much of the country would not support a war against China.  Much of the country is beholden to China as it is.   China has already bought that loyalty.   All this regime has to do is negotiate favorable terms of surrender.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Saddam had a big Army. I can't say I'm all that impressed by China's.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tipsycatlover said:


> All it means is a very short war with an assured Chinese victory.  Not that many people in the US would care one way or other other.
> 
> We DO have Rules of Engagement that lets our own troops die rather than send support.  We ARE developing a friendlier, gentler, more nurturing gay friendly military.  We've allowed ourselves to be so beaten up over using nuclear weapons the first time, this nation would never use them again.  The country is too divided.
> 
> It is not just that the United States can't win a war against the Chinese.  We can't win a war against ANYONE. We can't win a war against goatherders after ten years of fighting.
> 
> Much of the country would not support a war against China.  Much of the country is beholden to China as it is.   China has already bought that loyalty.   All this regime has to do is negotiate favorable terms of surrender.



No sane person wants to fight China over your reasons.


----------



## Photonic

RAYLIEN said:


> i believe that u.s. is our true ally,our defender and our mother. hail ye, oh america, the land of the brave and the land which was choosen by god to become a defender and crusher of any nation who is showing thier power to the smaller and poorer country such as philippines MY BELOVED COUNTRY.. HELP US AMERICA!!!! I AM RAYLIEN GARGANERA, FILIPINO!!! WILLING TO DIE FOR AMERICA AND PHILIPPINES!!!! FUCK YOU CHINESE COWARD CHICKEN SHITT!!!!



Lol, you go man.


----------



## Mr Natural

Why are we going to war with China now?


----------



## Photonic

Mr Clean said:


> Why are we going to war with China now?



We aren't, and they couldn't.

So I don't know why this came up.


----------



## Katzndogz

Of course we aren't going to to to war with China.  We couldn't possibly win such a conflict.  Or any conflict.

Their military would march across a battlefield, ours would merely "flounce".


----------



## Photonic

Tipsycatlover said:


> Of course we aren't going to to to war with China.  We couldn't possibly win such a conflict.  Or any conflict.
> 
> Their military would march across a battlefield, ours would merely "flounce".



No.


----------



## ekrem

Tipsycatlover said:


> Of course we aren't going to to to war with China.  We couldn't possibly win such a conflict.  Or any conflict.
> 
> Their military would march across a battlefield, ours would merely "flounce".



You don't go to war with your banker.


----------



## ekrem

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam had a big Army. I can't say I'm all that impressed by China's.



China is self-sufficient in all key areas needed for warfare. From steel production to building sophisticated weapons. 
Saddam wasn't even 1/100th what China is.


----------



## Photonic

ekrem said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam had a big Army. I can't say I'm all that impressed by China's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is self-sufficient in all key areas needed for warfare. From steel production to building sophisticated weapons.
> Saddam wasn't even 1/100th what China is.
Click to expand...


Yea except we out manufacture china with 1/10 the manpower.


----------



## rightwinger

Why would anyone want to fight China?  They are no threat to us and we are their biggest market. War does not make sense

However, if we were to fight, we would annihilate them. They are not in our league. Nobody is


----------



## Ropey

And they still can not design and build one decent powerful military engine. Once China can do more than copy parts they might be more of a worry.  They can not create a decent air force engine to save their lives and Russia will not allow them to build them in China ever since China was caught attempting to reverse engineer Russian software technology.



> BEIJING -- A Chinese air force jet crashed at an air show on Friday, leaving one of the pilots missing and presumed dead.
> 
> Footage aired by China Central Television showed the jet sputtering and then nose-diving into a field outside the northern city of Xi'an as one of the pilots ejected from the cockpit and landed beneath an open parachute.
> 
> Only one parachute was seen opening, and the plane, a two-seater JH-7 "Flying Leopard" fighter-bomber, burst into flames upon crashing. The other pilot's seat appeared not to have ejected.
> 
> The pilot who ejected suffered only minor injuries, but his comrade appeared to have been trapped in the doomed plane, the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing eyewitnesses and air show organizer, He Liang.
> 
> The plane crashed more than 1 mile from the nearest onlookers and there were no deaths or injuries on the ground.
> 
> The crash is being investigated and it wasn't clear if mechanical problems or pilot error was to blame. The plane is powered by two highly reliable license-built Spey Mk202 engines and it was considered unlikely that both would have stalled at the same time.
> 
> The Chinese-made JH-7 entered service in 2004 and is a mainstay of the country's air force and naval aviation, with more than 100 built.
> 
> At least one of the planes crashed previously  during a China-Russian joint exercise in 2009, killing both pilots.
> 
> China rarely released information about military accidents, but the public nature of the crash and the rapid spread of images of it happening on the Internet made it impossible to keep secret.



Chinese military jet fiery crash caught on tape



> 2011-10-11 (China Military News cited from strategypage.com) -- Russian sales of AL-31 jet engines to China have surpassed a thousand, with the addition of several new orders this year. This is because China wants to expand its fleet of modern jet fighters (J-10 and J-11), and keep pilots in the air often enough to develop and maintain combat skills. That wears out engines fasr. Another reason for the continued orders is persistent Chinese difficulties in developing jet engine manufacturing capabilities. China has been especially keen on freeing itself from dependence on Russian high-performance jet engines for its top-line jet fighters. That has not been happening.



Chinese Air Force's Dependence on Russian jet engines*|*China Military Power Mashup



> Because the R & D projects in China-made engine has some defects, the engine can not be widely used in military aircraft. As we all know, the Chinese improved strategic bombers H -6 equiped with the Russian-made D-30KP engine, JF-17 fighter with the RD-93 engine, J -10 with the AL-31FN engine, J-11 with AL -31F engines.
> 
> According to the Russian Military industry News  site on December 29 News reported that Chinas aviation enthusiasts, the 5th generation fighter first clear picture of the most amazing Christmas gifts. J -20 J -14 or code, or J-XX aircraft was taxiing at high speed, "passers, " found that after taking to the web. Perhaps this is to demonstrate transparency, perhaps the countrys military strength increasingly strong and proud of Chinas industrial spun leakage. In short, the new aircrafts engines roar in the Tiger, and now the remaining question is what kind of new aircraft in the end with the engine.







Chinas Brazen Cyber Theft? | China Power


----------



## 9thIDdoc

If we were to fight China again if would probably be in Korea (again). I think we gave them way more than they wanted last time.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> If we were to fight China again if would probably be in Korea (again). I think we gave them way more than they wanted last time.



China is pissed off with N Korea and is not going to mess up their trade relationships with the west to protect an unstable ally


----------



## Katzndogz

In all seriousness, China is not going to fight with us, whiile the US in the middle of tearing itself apart in obama's civil war.   The Chinese are a very patient people they can afford to wait until we are fighting in the streets.  Then they merely need to come in and mop up.  China has natural allies with the American communists, the difference is only that China is economically capitalist, America is moving to economic marxism.  The Chinese are happy to let the American left do their work for them.   

After all, didn't we write the book on international intervention?   Isn't obama right now in 8 different countries imposing peace?   No one is going to complain when the Chinese army goes into our streets to impose order.


----------



## rightwinger

Tipsycatlover said:


> In all seriousness, China is not going to fight with us, whiile the US in the middle of tearing itself apart in obama's civil war.   The Chinese are a very patient people they can afford to wait until we are fighting in the streets.  Then they merely need to come in and mop up.  China has natural allies with the American communists, the difference is only that China is economically capitalist, America is moving to economic marxism.  The Chinese are happy to let the American left do their work for them.
> 
> After all, didn't we write the book on international intervention?   Isn't obama right now in 8 different countries imposing peace?   No one is going to complain when the Chinese army goes into our streets to impose order.



Wow...what a paranoid, idiotic post


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in the discussions on Gulf War I when Iraq was billed as having a huge army, a large part of which were veterans of the 10 year war with Iran.
> 
> They were taken to pieces and nearly eliminated in the course of 6 weeks.
> 
> Gulf War II went even faster.
> 
> The Chinese don't have an effective air arm.   The navy is even less of an issue.
> 
> The only reason China has that big of an army is because they are afraid of their population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's military interests at this point are defense of their territory..something they are more then capable of doing.
Click to expand...


actually no, thats not quite true. they have been and are extending their self proclaim hegemony in the south china sea, but stretching what they call territorial waters. there have been incidents they have initiated between Indian, Vietnamese and Philippine navies....

they see economics as Clausewitz saw war, policy just by another means. they do realize that muscling up militarily as in projection, i.e. aircraft carriers etc. helps their economic cause as well. 

thats why obamas decision to not sell brand new F-16's to Taiwan and for the admin. to actually go out of their way to dump on a leading candidate in the Taiwanese elections as to 'upsetting' as to the   'balance' because she is adamantly  pro Taiwan Independence is very foolish.


----------



## Katzndogz

rightwinger said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, China is not going to fight with us, whiile the US in the middle of tearing itself apart in obama's civil war.   The Chinese are a very patient people they can afford to wait until we are fighting in the streets.  Then they merely need to come in and mop up.  China has natural allies with the American communists, the difference is only that China is economically capitalist, America is moving to economic marxism.  The Chinese are happy to let the American left do their work for them.
> 
> After all, didn't we write the book on international intervention?   Isn't obama right now in 8 different countries imposing peace?   No one is going to complain when the Chinese army goes into our streets to impose order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what a paranoid, idiotic post
Click to expand...


Except its true!  Obama has us involved in 8 separate military actions around the world.  We have the beginnings of obama's civil war in the leftist protests in our streets.   American companies can't leave the country fast enough.  China has absolutely no reason to fight with us while we are in the process of disintegrating.


----------



## Photonic

Tipsycatlover said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, China is not going to fight with us, whiile the US in the middle of tearing itself apart in obama's civil war.   The Chinese are a very patient people they can afford to wait until we are fighting in the streets.  Then they merely need to come in and mop up.  China has natural allies with the American communists, the difference is only that China is economically capitalist, America is moving to economic marxism.  The Chinese are happy to let the American left do their work for them.
> 
> After all, didn't we write the book on international intervention?   Isn't obama right now in 8 different countries imposing peace?   No one is going to complain when the Chinese army goes into our streets to impose order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what a paranoid, idiotic post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except its true!  Obama has us involved in 8 separate military actions around the world.  We have the beginnings of obama's civil war in the leftist protests in our streets.   American companies can't leave the country fast enough.  China has absolutely no reason to fight with us while we are in the process of disintegrating.
Click to expand...


:/

The last thing China would want is the US to disintegrate. We go, they go. A majority of their economy is invested in the US alone. They would be kicked into the dark ages if we went under.


----------



## Katzndogz

Photonic said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what a paranoid, idiotic post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except its true!  Obama has us involved in 8 separate military actions around the world.  We have the beginnings of obama's civil war in the leftist protests in our streets.   American companies can't leave the country fast enough.  China has absolutely no reason to fight with us while we are in the process of disintegrating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :/
> 
> The last thing China would want is the US to disintegrate. We go, they go. A majority of their economy is invested in the US alone. They would be kicked into the dark ages if we went under.
Click to expand...


Well, they wouldn't let that happen would they?   If it looked like this was likely, they would come in as custodians and restore order.   What are we doing around the world?   

Sadly, and I say this will all sincerety, as China's interests in the US are so entrenched, the citizens might welcome such intervention.  There would be no grassroots opposition of any size.


----------



## Katzndogz

I was discussing this with a friend.  As we looked around and realized how heavily invested our city had become to Chinese interests, everything was owned by China or a Chinese, or  soon to be owned, improved, changed, torn down and built up, he said that one day we would wake up and find LA Harbor filled with Chinese warships.  My answer was "By then no one will care".


----------



## Unkotare

Tipsycatlover said:


> In all seriousness, China is not going to fight with us, whiile the US in the middle of tearing itself apart in obama's civil war.   The Chinese are a very patient people they can afford to wait until we are fighting in the streets.  Then they merely need to come in and mop up.  China has natural allies with the American communists, the difference is only that China is economically capitalist, America is moving to economic marxism.  The Chinese are happy to let the American left do their work for them.
> 
> After all, didn't we write the book on international intervention?   Isn't obama right now in 8 different countries imposing peace?   No one is going to complain when the Chinese army goes into our streets to impose order.



Don't get over-excited.


----------



## Unkotare

Tipsycatlover said:


> I was discussing this with a friend.  As we looked around and realized how heavily invested our city had become to Chinese interests, everything was owned by China or a Chinese, or  soon to be owned, improved, changed, torn down and built up, he said that one day we would wake up and find LA Harbor filled with Chinese warships.  My answer was "By then no one will care".



You and your friend need to put down the bong for awhile.


----------



## Katzndogz

I'm almost looking forward to it.

If the choice is between Chinese communism and liberal marxism, there is no choice.


----------



## Unkotare

Get your hysterical nonsense under control and sober up kid.


----------



## alan1

xsited1 said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> China can field an Army of 200 Million Men
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Chinese men are so much skinnier and shorter than American men, it takes about 4 of them to equal one American soldier so it's more like an army of 50 million men.
Click to expand...


It's harder to hit a smaller target with a bullet.
Nukes don't care.


----------



## Unkotare

xsited1 said:


> Since Chinese men are so much skinnier and shorter than American men, it takes about 4 of them to equal one American soldier .





This is not the 1950s. Don't make too many assumptions.


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says dat's why dey don't have enough womens to marry `cause o' dat one-child policy so dey gonna come over here an' steal alla white womens - `cause dem Chinawomens is marryin' gayboys...

*16 million women married to gay men in China: Expert*
_Feb 3, 2012: An estimated 16 million women in China may be married to homosexual men, "silently suffering" the consequences to sustain their wedlock, a leading Chinese expert claimed today._


> Prof Zhang Bei-chuan from Qingdao University, who researches on AIDS and HIV, said that about 90% of homosexual men marry because of pressure to follow traditional values prevalent in the country.  "But their wives are struggling to cope and their plight should be recognised," he was quoted by the state-run China Daily. About 16 million women in China may be married to homosexual men, he claimed.
> 
> Xiao Yao, a 29-year-old magazine editor in Xi'an, Shaanxi province, divorced her gay husband in 2008.  "Most gay men's wives I've known are silently suffering at the hands of husbands who could never love them, and like me, some even got abused by husbands who were also under great pressure," she said.  She runs a website which has 1,200 such women registered as users and says it "makes them feel they're not alone and empowers them to make the right choices."
> 
> However, the gay community is split on the claim. "Zhang's estimation is unsubstantiated and I even feel it's pointless to research the issue," Xiao Dong, a 36-year-old gay, who heads a civil organisation for HIV/AIDS prevention and control, said.  "To put gays' wives under the spotlight might cause more public misunderstanding or even hatred toward the gay population, which does not help defuse existing social discrimination against them," he said, while adding that the question of marriage is complicated for them.
> 
> However, Meng Lin, a 50-year-old gay from Beijing, believes that Zhang's estimation is reasonable.  "I myself almost married a woman many years ago, but finally gave up when I learnt I was HIV positive," he said.  "Gay men and gays' wives are both victims of social discrimination and stigma, so we should not simply blame one party," he added.  Wang Zi (name changed) said that he would never tell his parents the truth and while he does not want a heterosexual marriage, he would consider it so as not to hurt the feelings of his parents.  "I may marry a lesbian and we can keep going with our own lifestyle more honestly," the 27-year-old said.
> 
> Source


----------



## JakeStarkey

9thIDdoc said:


> If we were to fight China again if would probably be in Korea (again). I think we gave them way more than they wanted last time.



You bet we did.  They ran us below the DMZ, then held us to the DMZ generally for the rest of the war, then held us to the DMZ in the peace talks.  In other words, Red China saved North Korea.


----------



## Katzndogz

China has no need of an army over here.  They can simply foreclose and get it all.


----------



## Unkotare

Some people just can't resist repeating that tired old nonsense every time any topic relating to China comes up.


----------



## Andrew2382

I honestly don't think China and the US will ever get into a traditional war...our economies are too involved with each other, if we crash so do they.  Also, if it were to happen, true their army is vast, however they have no navy compared to us and our air force is superior.


----------



## editec

to quote my Uncle, who was formerly an artillary officer during the Korean clash of the early 50's?

_Fighting the RED CHINESE army is like pissing on an anthill. Everything works out for you pretty well, *but then eventually you run out of piss.*_


----------



## MikeK

editec said:


> Yes, and the USA can field 35,000 nuclear weapons.
> 
> But don't worrry about China's military might, its their economic might that is going to make all the difference.


The Chinese have nukes, too.  So what you're suggesting is in inevitable fact, Armageddon.  

That is why I believe we should never have suspended the draft.  Because if we had not we would now have a massive reserve of trained soldiers in the civilian population who could be activated within a very short time.  As it is the U.S. population consists largely of untrained, undisciplined, spoiled and lazy males for whom the thought of military service is a frightening and offensive prospect.  It would take no less then three or four months to induct and to train them.

The U.S. once was a nation of fighters.  This is no longer the case.  We have become soft, spoiled and complacent, whereas the Chinese are lean and mean.  An unhappy reality, but reality nonetheless.


----------



## Unkotare

MikeK said:


> The U.S. once was a nation of fighters.  This is no longer the case.  We have become soft, spoiled and complacent, whereas the Chinese are lean and mean.  An unhappy reality, but reality nonetheless.





Yeah, yeah. Every generation says that about the next one. If it makes you feel any better, they do the same in China too.


----------



## Big Fitz

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.


200 million huh.  With very few wives to satisfy them thanks to the 1 child policy.  So... almost biblical in nature isn't it?


----------



## Obamerican

MikeK said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the USA can field 35,000 nuclear weapons.
> 
> But don't worrry about China's military might, its their economic might that is going to make all the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese have nukes, too.  So what you're suggesting is in inevitable fact, Armageddon.
> 
> That is why I believe we should never have suspended the draft.  Because if we had not we would now have a massive reserve of trained soldiers in the civilian population who could be activated within a very short time.  As it is the U.S. population consists largely of untrained, undisciplined, spoiled and lazy males for whom the thought of military service is a frightening and offensive prospect.  It would take no less then three or four months to induct and to train them.
> 
> The U.S. once was a nation of fighters.  This is no longer the case.  We have become soft, spoiled and complacent, whereas the Chinese are lean and mean.  An unhappy reality, but reality nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Nukes aren't much good when fighting the United States if you don't have a reliable delivery system which the Chinese do not. BUT, they are working on that and getting better. Some time soon the delivery problem will not be an issue.


----------



## Unkotare

Obamerican said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the USA can field 35,000 nuclear weapons.
> 
> But don't worrry about China's military might, its their economic might that is going to make all the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese have nukes, too.  So what you're suggesting is in inevitable fact, Armageddon.
> 
> That is why I believe we should never have suspended the draft.  Because if we had not we would now have a massive reserve of trained soldiers in the civilian population who could be activated within a very short time.  As it is the U.S. population consists largely of untrained, undisciplined, spoiled and lazy males for whom the thought of military service is a frightening and offensive prospect.  It would take no less then three or four months to induct and to train them.
> 
> The U.S. once was a nation of fighters.  This is no longer the case.  We have become soft, spoiled and complacent, whereas the Chinese are lean and mean.  An unhappy reality, but reality nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nukes aren't much good when fighting the United States if you don't have a reliable delivery system which the Chinese do not. BUT, they are working on that and getting better. Some time soon the delivery problem will not be an issue.
Click to expand...



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Obamerican

Unkotare said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese have nukes, too.  So what you're suggesting is in inevitable fact, Armageddon.
> 
> That is why I believe we should never have suspended the draft.  Because if we had not we would now have a massive reserve of trained soldiers in the civilian population who could be activated within a very short time.  As it is the U.S. population consists largely of untrained, undisciplined, spoiled and lazy males for whom the thought of military service is a frightening and offensive prospect.  It would take no less then three or four months to induct and to train them.
> 
> The U.S. once was a nation of fighters.  This is no longer the case.  We have become soft, spoiled and complacent, whereas the Chinese are lean and mean.  An unhappy reality, but reality nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Nukes aren't much good when fighting the United States if you don't have a reliable delivery system which the Chinese do not. BUT, they are working on that and getting better. Some time soon the delivery problem will not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You do know that a nuke is worthless if you want to get it to a country if you DON'T HAVE A WAY TO GET IT THERE!! Right? Just asking.


----------



## Unkotare

Obamerican said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nukes aren't much good when fighting the United States if you don't have a reliable delivery system which the Chinese do not. BUT, they are working on that and getting better. Some time soon the delivery problem will not be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know that a nuke is worthless if you want to get it to a country if you DON'T HAVE A WAY TO GET IT THERE!! Right? Just asking.
Click to expand...


And for some reason you don't think China has any ICBMs?


----------



## Unkotare

China Fires New ICBM

Experts judge likely effects of new ICBM on China's nuclear policies - CISAC


New China ICBM Sub Appears Years Early


----------



## Ernie S.

A 200 million man army is of little consequence outside of China. Ready bodies is all they are. I seriously doubt that they can even arm and equip 200,000,000, much less move them.


----------



## Obamerican

Unkotare said:


> China Fires New ICBM
> 
> Experts judge likely effects of new ICBM on China's nuclear policies - CISAC
> 
> 
> New China ICBM Sub Appears Years Early


Did I not say that they were WORKING ON IT AND GETTING BETTER?

Are you saying that since the United States has been working on and testing ICBM's for the last 60 years is the same as an article that says the Chinese have a new delivery system?


----------



## Unkotare

China has had dozens of ICBMs since at least the 80s.


----------



## Obamerican

Unkotare said:


> China has had dozens of ICBMs since at least the 80s.


 Are you nervous?


----------



## Unkotare

If you've got a point don't be afraid to make it any time now...


----------



## Obamerican

Unkotare said:


> If you've got a point don't be afraid to make it any time now...


Since you seem to be mentally challenged (not the first time I've noticed) I will walk away from this before I tell you what I think.


----------



## Unkotare

Or, if you've GOT NOTHING TO SAY, just run along...


----------



## whitehall

Chinese men, women, kids, and unarmed senior citizens would all be charging machine guns if push came to shove and push would come with a bayonet in the back. Harry Truman did what dumb democrats including Barry Hussein have been doing for a hundred years. WW2 was over and he dropped the number of ground Troops and announced he wanted to get rid of the Marines. Along came Korea and Truman didn't even wait for congressional approval. He picked an aging WW1 general as overall commander and the mission was completed in a couple of months. When the old WW1 general announced that he wanted to expand the mission and invade NK with exhausted Troops who were not equipped for the terrain known for it's extreme cold winters Truman hid in the White House afraid to say anything or risk a political showdown with the politically savvy general. Meanwhile China issued a statement that it would enter the conflict if Americans approached the Yalu River which was the border between NK and China.. Sure enough Truman remained silent while the old WW1 general who never even spent a single night in Korea ordered Americans into the biggest ambush in history. Thank God for Marine generals OP Smith and Chesty Puller or it would have been a debacle. As it was Truman finally mustered enough courage to can MacArthur and amazingly the liberal media held a ticker tape parade for the general who was relieved of duty in disgrace. The three year conflict which was never approved by congress ended with about 54,000 Troops killed during the conflict. For some reason the number was later revised down by the DOD during the Clinton administration to 38,000 which included only Americans killed in combat on the Peninsula rather than the overall number including accidents and illnesses that every other conflict in history includes during the duration of a war.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> Chinese men, women, kids, and unarmed senior citizens would all be charging machine guns if push came to shove.




Unlikely.


----------



## bennylee

This is not only a false hood but ill educated. China does not have the capacity to raise 200million soldiers nor can it arm, feed or move such a force. One only has to look at the Korea conflict to see this. After intially smashing the allies with over 200,00 men in a surprise attack and advancing too far away from their supply lines they were qiuckly (historically speaking) pushed back to the 38th. 
It is simply not logistically possible to raise such a force that would be effective.


----------



## bennylee

This is not only a false hood but ill educated. China does not have the capacity to raise 200million soldiers nor can it arm, feed or move such a force. One only has to look at the Korea conflict to see this. After intially smashing the allies with over 200,00 men in a surprise attack and advancing too far away from their supply lines they were qiuckly (historically speaking) pushed back to the 38th. 
It is simply not logistically possible to raise such a force that would be effective.


----------



## Katzndogz

Maybe that's why the Chinese are buying up farmland all over the world.


----------



## waltky

Granny says dey gonna be one o' the 4 kings o' the east dat comes across the Euphrates river an' invades Israel inna last days Armygeddon...

*China boosts defence budget by 11.2% to $106.4 billion*
_Mar 4, 2012: China on Sunday announced a double-digit hike in military spending in 2012, in a move likely to fuel concerns about Beijing's rapid military build-up and increase regional tensions._


> The defence budget will rise 11.2 per cent to 670.27 billion yuan ($106.41 billion), said Li Zhaoxing, a spokesman for China's national parliament, citing a budget report submitted to the country's rubber-stamp legislature.  The figure marks a slowdown from 2011 when spending rose by 12.7 per cent but is still likely to fuel worries over China's growing assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region and push its neighbours to forge closer ties with the United States.
> 
> Li described the budget as "relatively low" as a percentage of gross domestic product compared with other countries and said it was aimed at "safeguarding sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity".  "We have a large territory and a long coastline but our defence spending is relatively low compared with other major countries," Li told reporters.  "It will not in the least pose a threat to other countries."
> 
> China has been increasing its military spending by double digits for most of the past decade, during which time its economy, now the world's second largest, grew at a blistering pace.  The People's Liberation Army -- the world's largest with an estimated 2.3 million troops -- is hugely secretive about its defence programmes, but insists its modernisation is purely defensive in nature.
> 
> The rapid military build-up has nevertheless set alarm bells ringing across Asia and in Washington, which announced in January a defence strategy focused on countering China's rising power.  Analysts said the smaller-than-expected increase in spending this year was an attempt by Beijing to ease concerns in the United States and the region about its growing military might.  "It is doubtful whether the message will get across because most countries know that the real budget is at least double the published one," said Willy Lam, a leading China expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
> 
> MORE



See also:

*China announces double-digit hike in its defense budget*
_March 4, 2012 | China announced on Sunday an 11.2% increase in its defense budget for 2012, the latest in a string of double-digit hikes in recent years._


> For the first time, Chinas defense spending will top $100 billion and that figure is believed by international experts to omit such large-ticket items as its space program.  Although the increase is not as large as last years, it is enough to provoke anxiety at a time that the United States is shifting military resources to the Asia-Pacific.  The budget was unveiled, as in past years, on the eve of the opening session of the National Peoples Congress, Chinas equivalent of a legislature, which meets annually in March.  At a news conference Sunday, Li Zhaoxing, a spokesman for the congress, announced the $110-billion budget, while stating that the spending constitutes no threat to other countries.  "You can see that we have 1.3 billion people with a large land areas and a long coastline, but our outlays on defense are quite low compared to other major countries," said Li.
> 
> By way of comparison, the U.S. Congress has approved $662 billion in Pentagon spending for next year, $43 billion lower than this year's budget.  China has been trying to upgrade its naval forces and in August unveiled an aircraft carrier it is developing -- a refurbished Soviet model acquired from Ukraine. It also did a test flight early last year of a prototype of a stealth fighter jet.  China is "growing bolder with regard to their expanded regional and global presence, and China continues to challenge the United States and our partners in the region in the maritime, cyber and space domains," Adm. Robert Willard, U.S. commander for the Asia-Pacific region, told the Senate Arms Services Committee last week. "They continue to advance their capabilities and capacities in all areas."
> 
> In recent years, China has made more assertive maritime claims, unnerving neighbors, particularly Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines.  Last year at this time, Beijing announced a 12.7% increase in military spending, resuming double-digit expansion after a more modest 7.5% increase in 2010.
> 
> Source


----------



## Katzndogz

How intimidated do you think China is by obama reducing our nuclear capability by 80%?


----------



## waltky

Not very, Granny thinks dey up to no good...

*China's double digit military growth*
_March 5th, 2012 - China said Sunday it plans to increase its defense budget by 11.2%, following similar increases in years past and coming on the heels of a renewed U.S. push in the region._


> The planned increase would lift spending to some 670 billion yuan ($106.4 billion) in 2012, which is almost 68 billion more than 2011 spending, said Li Zhaoxing, spokesman for the National People's Congress.  By comparison, the proposed U.S. defense budget for the 2013 fiscal year is $613.9 billion, including $525.4 billion in base spending. That budget cuts half a trillion dollars in spending increases over the next 10 years.  Li spoke a day before the annual session of the Chinese legislature is scheduled to start in Beijing.  "The Chinese government follows the principle of coordinating defense development with economic development. It sets the country's defense spending according to the requirement of national defense and the level of economic development," he said.
> 
> Last year, China announced it would increase its defense budget by close to 13%. It reported a 7.5% increase the year before.  Li stressed that China's defense spending will go primary toward living expenses, training, maintenance and equipment, China's state news agency Xinhua reported. Given the country's population, long coastline and large territory, the outlays are low, he said.  "The limited military strength of China is solely for safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will not pose a threat to any country," the news agency reported Li as saying.  Still, China's announcement is sure to stoke concerns among some its neighbors.
> 
> China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has vowed to use force against the island if it ever formally sought independence.  China also has claimed a significant portion of the South China Sea as its own territorial waters, putting it in conflict with other nations that have made claims on portions of the region.  The move is similarly sure to raise eyebrows in Washington, where President Barack Obama is pursuing a more aggressive approach in the region.  During last year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, the president stressed the importance of the Pacific to global economic security.
> 
> And this year, Obama and top defense officials unveiled a new U.S. defense strategy that focuses heavily on the Asia-Pacific region, a fast-growing economic powerhouse with numerous potential flashpoints that the administration has identified as crucial to U.S. interests.  The strategy calls for the United States to increase its military's "institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection, and deterrence in Asia-Pacific," said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.  Xinhua, while welcoming a peaceful U.S. role in the region, cautioned in a commentary then against the United States acting like a "bull in a china shop."
> 
> China's double digit military growth &#8211; CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Outback

Where are they going to field them?  Mongolia?  Russia? Taiwan?   That's a roll over.


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says dat Asian horde gonna come over here an' eat our lunch...

*Asia military budget to outgrow Europe this year*
_Mar 7, 2012 - Military spending in Asia will top that in Europe for the first time this year, a London-based think tank said yesterday in its annual assessment of the strength of the world's armies._


> The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said shifts in global economic power were increasingly reflected in military spending.  "Since the financial crisis in 2008, there has been a convergence in European and Asian defence spending levels," John Chipman, the IISS director general, said.  "While per capita spending levels in Asia remain significantly lower than those in Europe, on the current trend, Asian defence spending is likely to exceed that of Europe, in nominal terms, during 2012."  China leads the way in Asia and is engaged in a modernisation programme of its forces and military hardware financed by its rapid economic development, the report says.
> 
> Defence budgets in Europe meanwhile have been cut as a result of the economic crisis, with Britain - which has the biggest in Europe - imposing cuts of up to 30 per cent.  "In Europe, defence budgets remain under pressure and cuts continue to procurement programmes, equipment holdings and defence organisations," Mr Chipman said.  "Between 2008 and 2010, there have been reductions in defence spending in at least 16 European Nato member states. In a significant proportion of these, real-term declines have exceeded 10 per cent."  He said the effect of the cuts in European defence budgets was illustrated in last year's campaign in Libya, "which highlighted existing gaps in targeting, tanker aircraft and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance".
> 
> The United States, though its position as the world's military superpower is unchallenged for now, has cut back and reorientated its spending on defence, the IISS says.  US military spending in 2011 was US$739.3 billion (Dh2.7 trillion) compared to $89.8bn in China.  The US defence budget alone far exceeded the combined total of the 10 other biggest spenders.
> 
> Source


----------



## Old Rocks

China can field that army inside it's borders. Beyond that border, things get real rocky for them. Transport and supply is a bitch, and the larger the number, the worse of a bitch that it is.


----------



## ginscpy

and most of them are slant-eyes


----------



## Unkotare

ginscpy said:


> and most of them are slant-eyes



Felt an irresistible need to be a racist fucking asshole, did you?


----------



## High_Gravity

ginscpy said:


> and most of them are slant-eyes



You are one of the most ignorant close minded retarded cocksuckers on this board hands down.


----------



## ginscpy

I haveno idea who the leader of china is after mAO


----------



## Unkotare

ginscpy said:


> I haveno idea who the leader of china is after mAO



And you felt the need to proclaim your ignorance?


----------



## High_Gravity

ginscpy said:


> I haveno idea who the leader of china is after mAO



Yes go on keep proving your ignorance.


----------



## Artevelde

High_Gravity said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and most of them are slant-eyes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the most ignorant close minded retarded cocksuckers on this board hands down.
Click to expand...


That's harsh. (probably deserved)


----------



## ginscpy

It was like a joke.  (apologize to anyone offended) 

Tame compared to all  the stuff that was said about the Japanese  during WW2.


----------



## ginscpy

and there are crappy anyway with their 200 million


----------



## rdean

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



I raise their 200 million by 5 hydrogen bombs.  I win.


----------



## Unkotare

rdean said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I raise their 200 million by 5 hydrogen bombs.  I win.
Click to expand...




You are really, really stupid.


----------



## rdean

Unkotare said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I raise their 200 million by 5 hydrogen bombs.  I win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really, really stupid.
Click to expand...


So 5 hydrogen bombs can't beat an army of 200 million?  You sure?


----------



## GHook93

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



Beware the country of one billion virgins!  That is a lot of built up frustration. 

However, their shear numbers didn't help them in their war against Vietnam! In a one month war between China and Vietnam, China invaded Vietnam with over 200K men. Then lost 30K-40K causalities and ran back over the border with their tails between their legs!


----------



## High_Gravity

GHook93 said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beware the country of one billion virgins!  That is a lot of built up frustration.
> 
> However, their shear numbers didn't help them in their war against Vietnam! In a one month war between China and Vietnam, China invaded Vietnam with over 200K men. Then lost 30K-40K causalities and ran back over the border with their tails between their legs!
Click to expand...


Numbers alone doesn't mean a victory anymore.


----------



## rightwinger

High_Gravity said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beware the country of one billion virgins!  That is a lot of built up frustration.
> 
> However, their shear numbers didn't help them in their war against Vietnam! In a one month war between China and Vietnam, China invaded Vietnam with over 200K men. Then lost 30K-40K causalities and ran back over the border with their tails between their legs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Numbers alone doesn't mean a victory anymore.
Click to expand...


Agree....more targets


----------



## Unkotare

rdean said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I raise their 200 million by 5 hydrogen bombs.  I win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really, really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 5 hydrogen bombs can't beat an army of 200 million?  You sure?
Click to expand...



You are really, really, really stupid.


----------



## Mr. President

Men are just soft targets for drones.  Not to mention they do not have a Navy that can move their military anywhere without being completely destroyed by at least 6 different countries........


----------



## High_Gravity

Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.


----------



## Katzndogz

As a friend and I were watching the latest Chinese project razing and rebuilding a depressed area in our city my friend said "One day we will wake up and find the whole of Los Angeles Harbor filled with Chinese warships."

I replied "By then no one will care."

Since then, the Chinese have rebuilt, refurbished, two schools in that same city.

I should amend my comment to "By then they'll be welcomed with parades."


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> As a friend and I were watching the latest Chinese project razing and rebuilding a depressed area in our city my friend said "One day we will wake up and find the whole of Los Angeles Harbor filled with Chinese warships."
> 
> I replied "By then no one will care."
> 
> Since then, the Chinese have rebuilt, refurbished, two schools in that same city.
> 
> I should amend my comment to "By then they'll be welcomed with parades."



Will they be bringing shrimp fried rice with them?


----------



## GHook93

High_Gravity said:


> Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.



Not quite true. Say China goes to war with say Japan for instances. They bomb the entire Island of Japan. Smash Japan's infrastructure and military machine! When China decides they need to occupy the country after Japan's defenses are down, that 200 million man army will be very useful (although maybe 1% would be needed). 

As a first strike not as much as an advantage as it would seem, but as an occupying force suppressing the guerrila resistance, very effective!


----------



## rightwinger

GHook93 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite true. Say China goes to war with say Japan for instances. They bomb the entire Island of Japan. Smash Japan's infrastructure and military machine! When China decides they need to occupy the country after Japan's defenses are down, that 200 million man army will be very useful (although maybe 1% would be needed).
> 
> As a first strike not as much as an advantage as it would seem, but as an occupying force suppressing the guerrila resistance, very effective!
Click to expand...


The US Navy may have something to say about that


----------



## Artevelde

GHook93 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite true. Say China goes to war with say Japan for instances. They bomb the entire Island of Japan. Smash Japan's infrastructure and military machine! When China decides they need to occupy the country after Japan's defenses are down, that 200 million man army will be very useful (although maybe 1% would be needed).
> 
> As a first strike not as much as an advantage as it would seem, but as an occupying force suppressing the guerrila resistance, very effective!
Click to expand...


The Japanese Air Force is far superior to the Chinese. So that bombing is going to be a bit difficult.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite true. Say China goes to war with say Japan for instances. They bomb the entire Island of Japan. Smash Japan's infrastructure and military machine! When China decides they need to occupy the country after Japan's defenses are down, that 200 million man army will be very useful (although maybe 1% would be needed).
> 
> As a first strike not as much as an advantage as it would seem, but as an occupying force suppressing the guerrila resistance, very effective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese Air Force is far superior to the Chinese. So that bombing is going to be a bit difficult.
Click to expand...


Not just the airforce, but technologically in general.
And don't forget the US forces would promptly sink China's entire navy, and US/South Korean forces could target Beijing quite easily from where they are. So, it either quickly escalates into a nuclear war or China rethinks their priorities.


----------



## High_Gravity

GHook93 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those 200 million men will do real well on the defensive end, anything else? not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite true. Say China goes to war with say Japan for instances. They bomb the entire Island of Japan. Smash Japan's infrastructure and military machine! When China decides they need to occupy the country after Japan's defenses are down, that 200 million man army will be very useful (although maybe 1% would be needed).
> 
> As a first strike not as much as an advantage as it would seem, but as an occupying force suppressing the guerrila resistance, very effective!
Click to expand...


Well we defanged the Japanese Military after WW2, however if China fucks with Japan they will have to deal with us, we have several Military bases in that country.


----------



## Swagger

According to the UK and other European militaries, China remains a regional power, not global. Neither does it possess a Blue Water navy, so its fleet would be especially vulnerable once it ventured from its sphere of influence. And how would domestic stability be affected if this colossal army departed or turned its attention away from the populace its charged with keeping in line? My guess is that the underlying resentment - betrayed by so many Chinese claiming political asylum in the West - would come rapidly to the forefront, resulting in the regime being either toppled or severely undermined. Besides, if the Chinese were foolish enough to embark in outright war, it would have two factors to contend with. Firstly, Australia would serve as an enormous - and largely impregnable - landmass from which America and her allies could establish a frontline base of operations. Secondly, and perhaps a lot more concerning for China, they have a neighbour who still retains enormous, if not slightly outdated, military might; and has a history of disregarding UN directives and sanctions, and being merciless in even the smallest engagement: Russia.


----------



## Unkotare

And the SDF is itself nothing to sneeze at. 


Japan Ministry of Defense / JSDF


http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2011.html


----------



## SalaamAkir

Japanese technologies is far superiour to China's.


----------



## whitehall

Anybody remember the last time we fought China in a conventional war? Of course it was in Korea. The UN (American Troops) had the conflict won and the NK invaders were soundly defeated and the NK capital of Pongyang was even captured. Old WW1 Soldier Doug MacArthur decided to occupy the whole freaking peninsula in a winter campaign with exhausted ill-supplied American Troops even though he hadn't spent a single night in Korea during the time he was commanding general. MacArthur took his fawning stupid drooling media people on a plane ride to the Yalu river and pointed to the snow and claimed that there were no Chinese troops. Evidence indicates that a division of Red Chinese were camouflaged below. MacArthur led American Troops into the biggest ambush in history but thanks to Marine Corps leadership it didn't turn into a rout. Marines killed unskilled peasant Chinese troops by the score and managed to rescue the campaign from disaster. MacArthur turned into a crazy ranting nut case and was finally relieved of duty.


----------



## Godboy

My money is on the AC-130 that's flying above those 200 million Chinese soldiers.


----------



## GHook93

peace2011 said:


> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.



Their vast army didn't help them when they invaded Vietnam shortly after we left in 1979. In '79 they lost (depending on the source) btw 60K-100K men in one month after sending in an army of 300K men. In one month they lost more than we lost in a decade of fighting!

The result in that war. After one month of fighting China ran back over the border with their tail between their legs!


----------



## JakeStarkey

If China cannot project the power of its army competently beyond its borders, then the size of its army remains immaterial.


----------



## Unkotare

GHook93 said:


> peace2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their vast army didn't help them when they invaded Vietnam shortly after we left in 1979. In '79 they lost (depending on the source) btw 60K-100K men in one month after sending in an army of 300K men. In one month they lost more than we lost in a decade of fighting!
> 
> The result in that war. After one month of fighting China ran back over the border with their tail between their legs!
Click to expand...




Deng got what he wanted out of it anyway.


----------



## Indeependent

The whole world is funding China.


----------

