Emmanuel Goldstein Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 It appears the Chinese Military is about to invade Hong Kong. Sadly, the world will do nothing but watch and wring their hands. https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chinese-forces-gathering-at-hong-kong-border-white-house-officials-monitoring-escalation/news-story/82621253f4c093c69834e041713ab34d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 45 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said: It appears the Chinese Military is about to invade Hong Kong. Sadly, the world will do nothing but watch and wring their hands. https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chinese-forces-gathering-at-hong-kong-border-white-house-officials-monitoring-escalation/news-story/82621253f4c093c69834e041713ab34d I found it eye raising that China was blaming Trump for the unrest. Quote It comes as Beijing accused the United States of inciting the increasingly unruly protests in Hong Kong, which began two months ago over a proposed extradition bill that could see citizens sent to the mainland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted July 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 15 minutes ago, Mores said: I found it eye raising that China was blaming Trump for the unrest. Yeah, a prelude to war with the USA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said: Yeah, a prelude to war with the USA? Unlikely. If China unleashed their entire arsenal in a focused attempt to destroy the US, we would suffer heavy civilian and military casualties. But China would be wiped out as a governmental entity, and probably tens of millions would die in war, likely hundreds of milllions in the aftermath. I may be way overestimating US military might, but I would guess that the US could stand against the world's next five largest militaries combined, and probably eventually win. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Vort said: Unlikely. If China unleashed their entire arsenal in a focused attempt to destroy the US, we would suffer heavy civilian and military casualties. But China would be wiped out as a governmental entity, and probably tens of millions would die in war, likely hundreds of milllions in the aftermath. I may be way overestimating US military might, but I would guess that the US could stand against the world's next five largest militaries combined, and probably eventually win. Because of a tiny barrier we call "oceans" it would be largely a naval war if we were to go all out. And we rule the seas by two of the most important categories: Aircraft carriers (24) and Destroyers (68). So, the battles would have to be centered around submarine warfare. I'm not up to speed on that very well. So, I don't know if we'd win between us vs both the Russians and Chinese. Our 68 subs vs. their combined 132 subs. That would be interesting to see. But as long as we win the submarine warfare side of it, we'd wipe anyone else up like my dog liking up spilt gravy from the kitchen floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted July 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 41 minutes ago, Mores said: Because of a tiny barrier we call "oceans" it would be largely a naval war if we were to go all out. And we rule the seas by two of the most important categories: Aircraft carriers (24) and Destroyers (68). So, the battles would have to be centered around submarine warfare. I'm not up to speed on that very well. So, I don't know if we'd win between us vs both the Russians and Chinese. Our 68 subs vs. their combined 132 subs. That would be interesting to see. But as long as we win the submarine warfare side of it, we'd wipe anyone else up like my dog liking up spilt gravy from the kitchen floor. All of these things would not necessarily prevent China from trying something. Also, they have become alarmingly chummy with Russia lately. Do you think we would do anything other than bluster if China takes Taiwan and Japan while Russia takes Ukraine and Poland at the same time? Throw in the problems we are having with Turkey and you have a World War that does not involve attacking the United States Directly. We also have issues springing up with Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba in recent years as well. It is all very complicated, especially if they all move at the same time. Are we willing to risk a nuclear war over countries that are not us? We may have a lot of problems to deal with very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said: All of these things would not necessarily prevent China from trying something. Also, they have become alarmingly chummy with Russia lately. Do you think we would do anything other than bluster if China takes Taiwan and Japan while Russia takes Ukraine and Poland at the same time? Throw in the problems we are having with Turkey and you have a World War that does not involve attacking the United States Directly. We also have issues springing up with Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba in recent years as well. It is all very complicated, especially if they all move at the same time. Are we willing to risk a nuclear war over countries that are not us? We may have a lot of problems to deal with very soon. You're right. It is all very complicated. But I doubt we'd have anyone trying to attack us on our mainland. That would be suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Mores said: Because of a tiny barrier we call "oceans" it would be largely a naval war if we were to go all out. And we rule the seas by two of the most important categories: Aircraft carriers (24) and Destroyers (68). So, the battles would have to be centered around submarine warfare. I'm not up to speed on that very well. So, I don't know if we'd win between us vs both the Russians and Chinese. Our 68 subs vs. their combined 132 subs. That would be interesting to see. But as long as we win the submarine warfare side of it, we'd wipe anyone else up like my dog liking up spilt gravy from the kitchen floor. As I understand it, China has mostly a green-water sub fleet that isn’t really blue-water capable. Their diesels can be very quiet and highly effective for coastal defense—but our boomers don’t need to be anywhere near their costs to nuke the mainland. The bigger question is whether our nation of cut-and-runners is willing to lose a few thousand men in order to maintain Taiwanese autonomy, or guarantee the sanctity of some goshforsaken rock claimed by the Philippines or Vietnam. I don’t think we are. The Chinese don’t want to conquer the US. They just want us to stay out of their way while they build their equivalent of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 If Hollywood and military video games have taught me anything, it’s that China, Russia, and NK will, without a shadow of a doubt, unite and start WW3. This has been proven, only uncultured swine and science deniers would deny this. SilentOne 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Mores said: You're right. It is all very complicated. But I doubt we'd have anyone trying to attack us on our mainland. That would be suicide. Even if Marianne Williamson were Presidentess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 This is not about Hong Kong nor war. China doesn't want that. This is all about China desperately squirming at the end of the fishing line trying not to surrender in the trade negotiations. "The world" is simply letting China squirm instead of trying to jump on this card China is trying to play. Sorry, Xi. You gotta buy them farm things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 This was a bummer... IKEA strikes again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 13 hours ago, Fether said: If Hollywood and military video games have taught me anything, it’s that China, Russia, and NK will, without a shadow of a doubt, unite and start WW3. This has been proven, only uncultured swine and science deniers would deny this. Well, if Hollywood said it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Texan said: Even if Marianne Williamson were Presidentess? Even if... We have over 100,000,000 gun owners. If each of those gun owners averaged even ONE enemy kill, the war would be over. And with all the licensed hunters in America, we have the largest army of snipers in the world (over 700,000). Yeah, a land battle in the 48 states is not going to go well for anyone. Edited August 1, 2019 by Mores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, Texan said: Even if Marianne Williamson were Presidentess? Edited August 1, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, NeedleinA said: This was a bummer... IKEA strikes again. So, The Swedish World Empire is inevitable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Mores said: Even if... We have over 100,000,000 gun owners. If each of those gun owners averaged even ONE enemy kill, the war would be over. And with all the licensed hunters in America, we have the largest army of snipers in the world (over 700,000). Yeah, a land battle in the 48 states is not going to go well for anyone. Especially for those caught in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 I didn't watch Marianne Williamson. Maybe she is the moonstruck Kumbaya Child she's portrayed as. But when she says: why is this objectionable? Don't we pretty much agree with it? I'm disgusted by Democrat types mocking those who hold religion as sacred and who speak in what they consider sacred terms. I see no reason to mock someone else who sincerely speaks in such language, even if I don't use that kind of wording myself. If she's a hypocrite, we can point out her hypocrisies, but to mock her just because she said "God" using metaphors we wouldn't use seems churlish, if not downright hypocritical on our part. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Vort said: I didn't watch Marianne Williamson. Maybe she is the moonstruck Kumbaya Child she's portrayed as. But when she says: why is this objectionable? Don't we pretty much agree with it? I'm disgusted by Democrat types mocking those who hold religion as sacred and who speak in what they consider sacred terms. I see no reason to mock someone else who sincerely speaks in such language, even if I don't use that kind of wording myself. If she's a hypocrite, we can point out her hypocrisies, but to mock her just because she said "God" using metaphors we wouldn't use seems churlish, if not downright hypocritical on our part. Perhaps, but when you read her book it becomes objectionable because she is basically acting like a cult leader with the people who follow her. It is concerning. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Vort said: I didn't watch Marianne Williamson. Maybe she is the moonstruck Kumbaya Child she's portrayed as. She reminds me a lot of Elizabeth Clare Prophet from the Church Universal and Triumphant from the 1980s. As someone from Montana I find her very disturbing. I get nervous whenever someone begins teaching their religion from the Congressional pulpit. There is one of the reasons Jefferson thought there should be a wall of separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said: There is one of the reasons Jefferson thought there should be a wall of separation. I'm no historian, but I was under the impression that the Jeffersonian "wall" was to protect other religions from the state-sanctioned religion as seen in the Church of England, not to prevent anyone, politician or otherwise, from speaking in the public or legal domain using religious speech. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Vort said: I'm no historian, but I was under the impression that the Jeffersonian "wall" was to protect other religions from the state-sanctioned religion as seen in the Church of England, not to prevent anyone, politician or otherwise, from speaking in the public or legal domain using religious speech. Yes, it was to protect us from that. Having an actual cult leader as our President could be very problematic. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) Sorry, I appear to have missed a decimal. About 7,000,000 snipers. Licensed hunters, BTW is much higher (between 20 and 40 million). But many of those licences are not the type where you use a rifle to hunt game. But snipers could be a much higher number. Edited August 1, 2019 by Mores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 1, 2019 Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said: Yes, it was to protect us from that. Having an actual cult leader as our President could be very problematic. D'oh. I remember that, but I didn't realize it was Marianne Williamson. I take it all back. She deserves whatever brickbats are thrown her way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted August 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, Vort said: D'oh. I remember that, but I didn't realize it was Marianne Williamson. I take it all back. She deserves whatever brickbats are thrown her way. Yeah, I especially like how the Spirit is brought in by the possible possession at the 15:42 mark. Disturbing beyond belief. 8-0 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.