Guest Derek L Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Walkers_World_War_in_South_China_Sea_999.html I honestly forgot which thread topic it was in, but I remember having a discussion a few weeks back on the topic of the next world war, with the Chinese being a key participant: An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They’re referring to the Spratly Islands for those not in the know......... The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys." More racial harmony from the Middle Kingdom…….interestingly enough, both nations of “monkeys” have been recently conducting naval exercises with the United States. The Global Times is China's main newspaper for international affairs, widely distributed internationally in English, and is published under the authority of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The article also argued that the United States wouldn't intervene, too preoccupied with its war on terror, its quagmire in Afghanistan and its own economic problems. Ahhh……The Americans won’t intervene……..Tora, Tora, Tora The second trigger was India's rejection of Chinese objections to its own new agreements to explore for oil in Vietnamese waters, in partnership with Vietnam. Global Times had criticized the Indian approach, saying in an editorial that Vietnam's efforts to bring in foreign companies to explore for oil amount to a "serious political provocation."India hasn't been intimidated. Ahh…..India, one of the other Asian nuclear powers……..whom don’t really get along with their nuclear neighbour……Pakistan, the very nation that has had it’s intelligence agency involved in attacks on US forces in Afghanistan The Pentagon plans to boost its presence in the region by strengthening the military capability of its air, naval and marine bases in Guam are in question because of plans to cut the defense budget. The plans include a new aircraft carrier berth, submarine and logistics bases, facilities for more stealth warplanes, B-2 and B-52 bombers on Guam and to move 8,600 U.S. Marines to the island. Last time the US defence budget didn’t allow for a strengthen of forces on Guam, the world was just coming out of the great depression………….Like I said to Jacee(?) don’t waste your time protesting the “current system”, and don’t worry about the global economy and an increase on social spending to get us out of the financial mess………We’ll revert back to that age old trick of sorting out our problems……….in the end, what’s left of Red China, can use their current holdings of US T-bills to keep warm, for that is all they’ll be worth....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 The public is not interested in real important matters...^They are more concerned about making our children freaks of nature while watching dancing with the stars..by the time they wake up they will have a made in China trudgeon up their ass..but by then our populace with probably be thrilled at the prospect...seeing they are conditioned politically - and sexaully to accept such an intrusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Ahh…..India, one of the other Asian nuclear powers……..whom don’t really get along with their nuclear neighbour……Pakistan, the very nation that has had it’s intelligence agency involved in attacks on US forces in AfghanistanI thought granting oil leases to India was a rather brilliant move on the part of Vietnam.I hope things do not escalate. The political dynamics in China are very similar to pre-war Japan. We know that only ended with nuclear bombs dropping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) I thought granting oil leases to India was a rather brilliant move on the part of Vietnam. I hope things do not escalate. The political dynamics in China are very similar to pre-war Japan. We know that only ended with nuclear bombs dropping. As I mentioned in the other thread, what we’re seeing today in terms of growing financial troubles, increased nationalism, division of class and an ever increasing demand on natural resources is putting us today in the very same climate as to what could be found in the 1930s…….My advice, buy defence stocks…..many will decry you as a fear mongering, war profiteering such and such, but be that as it may, the same labels we’re also attached to Churchill………and he owned a lot of stock in Krupp Steel. Edited October 7, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Ok heres my take on this topic. And it reads similar to "Apocalypse Now" My wife is from Nanning,Guangxi autonomous region of southern China wich gives me unique insight(Nanning is about a two hour train ride to north Vietnam). China did support North Vietnam during the war against the Americans(it was the anti-American thing to do).But soon after the American departure they started going after each other! According to my wife thousands of Chinese died fighting against the Vietnamese after the Nam war.I assume there would be similar numbers on the other side! Heres the twisted part.According to my wife,the USA is supporting Vietnams position now(because its the anti-Chinese thing to do). Why aren't the Americans trying to be the peacemaker hear(their so-called traditional roll). Or are the US intentionally trying to escalate this conflict? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Heres the twisted part.According to my wife,the USA is supporting Vietnams position now(because its the anti-Chinese thing to do). Why aren't the Americans trying to be the peacemaker hear(their so-called traditional roll). Or are the US intentionally trying to escalate this conflict? Why isn't Canada trying to be the peacemaker...you know...after claiming to be the inventor of peacemaking and all? You gotta problem with Vietnam and China? Fix it yourself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Ok heres my take on this topic. And it reads similar to "Apocalypse Now" My wife is from Nanning,Guangxi autonomous region of southern China wich gives me unique insight(Nanning is about a two hour train ride to north Vietnam). China did support North Vietnam during the war against the Americans(it was the anti-American thing to do).But soon after the American departure they started going after each other! According to my wife thousands of Chinese died fighting against the Vietnamese after the Nam war.I assume there would be similar numbers on the other side! Heres the twisted part.According to my wife,the USA is supporting Vietnams position now(because its the anti-Chinese thing to do). Why aren't the Americans trying to be the peacemaker hear(their so-called traditional roll). Or are the US intentionally trying to escalate this conflict? WWWTT Quite simply, realpolitik..IOW, the same reason the Chinese sell weapons to the American’s enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 As I mentioned in the other thread, what we’re seeing today in terms of growing financial troubles, increased nationalism, division of class and an ever increasing demand on natural resources is putting us today in the very same climate as to what could be found in the 1930s…….My advice, buy defence stocks…..many will decry you as a fear mongering, war profiteering such and such, but be that as it may, the same labels we’re also attached to Churchill………and he owned a lot of stock in Krupp Steel. Actually if we all pull the money out of those defence stocks, they would have a harder time trying to wage war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Actually if we all pull the money out of those defence stocks, they would have a harder time trying to wage war. And if our cars were fuelled by recycled hemp and the laughter of children we wouldn’t need oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 And if our cars were fuelled by recycled hemp and the laughter of children we wouldn’t need oil. We could be grown up and civil about this, or we can be total asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Actually if we all pull the money out of those defence stocks, they would have a harder time trying to wage war. Care to explain? Who are 'they' and how would pulling money out of defense stocks inhibit their ability to wage war? Something tells me you haven't thought this statement through much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 We could be grown up and civil about this, or we can be total asses. Exactly……Most defence companies also make civilian goods……..i.e. The LAV III was made by a division of GM……Our CC-17s made by the largest producer of civil airlines in the world……..even the computers you and I are communicating on likely have parts made by companies that also make weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Care to explain? Who are 'they' and how would pulling money out of defense stocks inhibit their ability to wage war? Something tells me you haven't thought this statement through much. Well, less RnD goes into development of weapons. So, with that, the tech is not advancing as fast, and the military would lose their edge. When the military does not have that technological edge, it will be less willing to start another war, simply because they no longer have the advantage, and the losses on the battlefield will be greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, less RnD goes into development of weapons. So, with that, the tech is not advancing as fast, and the military would lose their edge. When the military does not have that technological edge, it will be less willing to start another war, simply because they no longer have the advantage, and the losses on the battlefield will be greater. You wish to control what private companies invest in? I thought you wanted to be grown-up about this…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Exactly……Most defence companies also make civilian goods……..i.e. The LAV III was made by a division of GM……Our CC-17s made by the largest producer of civil airlines in the world……..even the computers you and I are communicating on likely have parts made by companies that also make weapons. True, these defence entities do make civilian goods, but most of them started out as some weapon or military RnD project before becoming something a civilian can use. A good example on that is the Hummer. Useful on the battlefield, not very useful as a grocery getter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 You wish to control what private companies invest in? I thought you wanted to be grown-up about this…… Do we need to invest in weapons of war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 True, these defence entities do make civilian goods, but most of them started out as some weapon or military RnD project before becoming something a civilian can use. A good example on that is the Hummer. Useful on the battlefield, not very useful as a grocery getter. Exactly, if it wasn’t for defence research funding, you and I likely wouldn’t be discussing this very topic right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Exactly, if it wasn’t for defence research funding, you and I likely wouldn’t be discussing this very topic right now We just might still be talking about it. But maybe not through the Internet. The Internet is also has now been re-weaponized. It can be used against a country in warfare. And has been. I do agree that some good does come out of it all for civilian applications, but do we really need a war in order for civilian applications to come about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 We just might still be talking about it. But maybe not through the Internet. The Internet is also has now been re-weaponized. It can be used against a country in warfare. And has been. I do agree that some good does come out of it all for civilian applications, but do we really need a war in order for civilian applications to come about? Well most civilian applications, directly or indirectly, come about from war…….been the case for centuries…..I’m not advocating war, but the current world climate is ripe for a big one. Whether it will be over water or oil (or both) is anyone’s guess, but one only needs to look at history to see the social and economic climate prior to past major wars to see the striking similarities between then and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well most civilian applications, directly or indirectly, come about from war…….been the case for centuries…..I’m not advocating war, but the current world climate is ripe for a big one. Whether it will be over water or oil (or both) is anyone’s guess, but one only needs to look at history to see the social and economic climate prior to past major wars to see the striking similarities between then and now. I agree a big war is on the horizon, and it seems that the powers that be want to fast track that with the recent rhetoric ramp up towards Iran. More fear mongering by those in power. What is wrong with our world, when we need to go to war over something like water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I agree a big war is on the horizon, and it seems that the powers that be want to fast track that with the recent rhetoric ramp up towards Iran. More fear mongering by those in power. What is wrong with our world, when we need to go to war over something like water? Nah, any war with Iran won’t be the “big one”………It’ll be in Asia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 Nah, any war with Iran won’t be the “big one”………It’ll be in Asia. China is itchin. Russia is preparing. America is weak thanks to the current government. Things are definitely brewing.....and it'll be nasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 China is itchin. Russia is preparing. America is weak thanks to the current government. Things are definitely brewing.....and it'll be nasty. As much as I disagree with Obama, is hasn’t done much yet to screw-up the US military……..They did much worse under Bush the elder and Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Well, less RnD goes into development of weapons. So, with that, the tech is not advancing as fast, and the military would lose their edge. When the military does not have that technological edge, it will be less willing to start another war, simply because they no longer have the advantage, and the losses on the battlefield will be greater. Except of course this is completely false. Military r&d funding does not depend on a company's stock price. Military r&d funding is provided through government contracts. Selling your shares of lockheed martin won't cost the f-35 program a penny. By the way, its not the "military" that starts wars, but government. In canada's case, sometimes with little consideration for the military's technological preparedness. Edited October 18, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/22/real_estate/doomsday_bunkers/index.htm if i were rich id def buy me a doomsday bunker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.