NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know about the veracity or exact context of the article reported in this article (http://www.halturnershow.com/ChineseDefenseMinisterTalksWarAgainstUS.html), but this kind of disturbs me.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world.

The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.

Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us ... Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves.

What ridiculousness. The Chinese isn't even correct. It was the English text Babelfished. Nutz! :rolleyes:

Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time [2], during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [3], mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of “peace and development” had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. Today, I’ll speak more specifically on these two issues.

The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non-combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war.


i'm pretty sure that if a survey asking the chinese people if they would be willing to kill civilians was posted on a major (and, as far as i know, internationally accessable website) something of a stir would have whipped up. also, the hal turner show? pardon my language, but what the fuck? i would think that this kind of story would garnish some international attention, but this is the first i've heard of it.

What ridiculousness. The Chinese isn't even correct. It was the English text Babelfished. Nutz! :rolleyes:

Hmm. Well, that clears it up then, thanks.

MAD

We've wait for about 200 years to rise above the nations. What harm does it do waiting for several more decades?

Don't forget: at times we choose to wait. For example, both Britain and Portugal offered to return Hong Kong and Macau to China in the 1960s, but China refused because they knew they weren't fit for ruling these colonies yet.

Our leaders may not step up as good directors of domestic policies, but we rock in foreign policy.

China did however, stand on par with military and technology that rivaled the Roman Empire at it's height, mind you. So it's not a new kid who's taking advantage: it's a has-been who has nothing better to do than to try and get back in the game.

Meh...

BS, as others have already pointed out.

I suspect China's plans for conquering the US invovlves BUYING it, not invading it.

I suspect China's plans for conquering the US invovlves BUYING it, not invading it.

That's smart foriegn dipolmacy for ya...

Meh...

BS, as others have already pointed out.

I suspect China's plans for conquering the US invovlves BUYING it, not invading it.

Mmmm, given the increasingly corporate nature of the US, not to mention that little thing in the SC that gave the government the right to take private property to sell if it would produce more in tax revenues, it does seem possible.

Mmmm, given the increasingly corporate nature of the US, not to mention that little thing in the SC that gave the government the right to take private property to sell if it would produce more in tax revenues, it does seem possible.

I'm pretty confident it'll happen someday.

Mmmm, given the increasingly corporate nature of the US, not to mention that little thing in the SC that gave the government the right to take private property to sell if it would produce more in tax revenues, it does seem possible.

I wasn't being sarcastic, though I'll admit to striving for *some* humour. I think its a perfectly feasible strategy for conquest. Given the nebulous and multi-national nature of corporations these days, it would only take some rather simple subterfuge to accomplish. I wish them luck. At least with the Chinese running the USA, we'd know for a fact the gov't was lying. It just wouldn't be legal to say so.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

I gotta admit - I think the "buy America" does seem a more likely and more beneficial tatic than "destroy it all".

Oh the Irony - Captialism being bought out... Heh

Didn't Stalin say something like "The Americans will sell us the rope to hang them with?"

If only he knew.

Not that you can blame the Chinese for trying though. If somebody put a "4 sale" sign on the White House, I bet you could find a couple of buyers in no time flat. =p

We've wait for about 200 years to rise above the nations. What harm does it do waiting for several more decades?

Don't forget: at times we choose to wait. For example, both Britain and Portugal offered to return Hong Kong and Macau to China in the 1960s, but China refused because they knew they weren't fit for ruling these colonies yet.

Our leaders may not step up as good directors of domestic policies, but we rock in foreign policy.


Im not sure Taiwan or Tibet would agree.

Not that you can blame the Chinese for trying though. If somebody put a "4 sale" sign on the White House, I bet you could find a couple of buyers in no time flat. =p

Is this a comment on donations from large companies to political parties? :p

Im not sure Taiwan or Tibet would agree.

Taiwan and Tibet are Chinese domestic territories, as much as Alaska and Hawaii are American territories.

Now I would like to ask: what makes Alaska and Hawaii part of "The United States of America" and why doesn't that make Tibet and Taiwan part of "The People's Republic of China".

Taiwan and Tibet are Chinese domestic territories, as much as Alaska and Hawaii are American territories.

Now I would like to ask: what makes Alaska and Hawaii part of "The United States of America" and why doesn't that make Tibet and Taiwan part of "The People's Republic of China".

Alaska and Hawaii are willingley part of the US.

Tibet was invaded and Taiwan has long been protesting it is not part of China.

Taiwan and Tibet are Chinese domestic territories, as much as Alaska and Hawaii are American territories.

Now I would like to ask: what makes Alaska and Hawaii part of "The United States of America" and why doesn't that make Tibet and Taiwan part of "The People's Republic of China".


Beucase residents of Alaska and Hawaii have no desire to be considered thier own soverign nations?

Taiwan and Tibet are Chinese domestic territories, as much as Alaska and Hawaii are American territories.

Now I would like to ask: what makes Alaska and Hawaii part of "The United States of America" and why doesn't that make Tibet and Taiwan part of "The People's Republic of China".

I'm not going to argue about Taiwan...I believe PRC and Taiwan will unify eventually, probably mutually as their economies become similar and the old generation in Taiwan starts to die off.

But to compare Tibet to Alaska or Hawaii??

We bought Alaska from Russia, and annexed Hawaii peacefully, and granted statehood when they were eligible. Except for a miniscule minority, none of them wish to be independent.

Tibet was invaded by Military force, after nearly 50 years of self-rule

Until we kill 400,000 native Alaskans of Hawaiians...there is NO comparison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
(specifically the "status" and "history" sections)

OMG damn commie bastard!!

Prepare the fleet, launch the nukes, destroy them all, muhahahahaha. :sniper: :p

Is this a comment on donations from large companies to political parties? :p

Wait till you find out that the corporations are actually dummy fronts for the Chinese goverm...oops.

Excuse me. I think I hear damage control coming.

*sounds of much gunfire, with the occassional explosion.

Alaska and Hawaii are willingley part of the US.

Tibet was invaded and Taiwan has long been protesting it is not part of China.
That's ridiculous. Alaska was bought from the Russians and Hawaii annexed. There was no "democratic vote" deciding for the people there. :rolleyes:

Beucase residents of Alaska and Hawaii have no desire to be considered thier own soverign nations?

It's not as if they had the choice?

I'm not going to argue about Taiwan...I believe PRC and Taiwan will unify eventually, probably mutually as their economies become similar and the old generation in Taiwan starts to die off.

But to compare Tibet to Alaska or Hawaii??

We bought Alaska from Russia, and annexed Hawaii peacefully, and granted statehood when they were eligible. Except for a miniscule minority, none of them wish to be independent.

Tibet was invaded by Military force, after nearly 50 years of self-rule

Until we kill 400,000 native Alaskans of Hawaiians...there is NO comparison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
(specifically the "status" and "history" sections)

The United States of America began with a bunch of invasions into completely foreign territories already occupied by peoples and civilisations.

There are hardly 400,000 people in Alaska and Hawaii put together at the time. It's not the number, it's the percentage. Moreover, how many Native Americans died so that the US of A could be established?

Tibet has been part of Chinese territory since the Qing Dynasty. I don't see why and how they should be granted independence just because the British came as imperialists and snatched it away from its legitimate owner.