Its only a matter of time before the US/Chino war

[Sturm]

Ok boroda calm down there, Riddlin is just a desk drawer away.  I think the russians should be kissing more then our shoes for what we did for them.  It is funny how over time the memory fades.  Not only russia but Great Britain as well.  Your amazing knowledge of history stifles me.  At any rate, We can take China as is.  Time to knock number 2 down a couple steps.  

[Ripsnort]

Hey, if its American manifesto, you're country gets rich, and the right to vote for the leaders...communism offers something slightly different.  

[Tuomio]

My sympathies are with China. And there will be no wars between china and usa, because USA is lead by markets and China is the biggest rising markets on the world.

You rednecks think, that Bush actually makes any decicions (he can execute people, but thats about all)? Decicions are made by those, that sponsors Bush (Cigarette companies, oil companies etc etc.) so i dont see any interests in those business to attack china. Actually quite an opposite, as they want to sell their products to them, not kill them.

And thats what YK is for, to make trusts and contracts, that are based on favours of USA. USA couldnt compete any better with the rest of the world if they werent cheating all the time (for instance they can steal freely patents, but dont let anyone else to do that) and using -70:s factory techologies, that would be immidiately closed in Europe, as they pollute absolutely too much than evinroment could handle.

There are smaller countries, which are more suitable for new weapons technology testing, like Bosnia (as weapons; the usage of them, are one major interest group). USA wants to test their weapons technology in countries, that cant fight back and China doesent fall in that category.

Its not about domination, its about easy money. And THATS what everyones after.

[Ripsnort]

Tuo, I'm just guessing here, but I'm guessing your a student, about 25 years or younger.(young, dumb, vulnerable to propoganda)

[Tuomio]

Ripsnort how was it with chosing the leaders in USA?

Wasnt it like this: Al Gore got majority of the votes and Bush got elected?
You dont vote directly your leaders, and that makes us all wonder; why not? As far as i know, the real democracy means, that people will lead and the leaders will follow. So USA is as far away from Democracy, as the China is from real Communism. The people are in both countries for the government and not the other way around, as they should be.

Btw, that democracy thing applies to all todays "democracys", but the thing, that rednecks claim their country to be something very special in the world is just plain bulls**t.

Edit: Im fairly young, but im not dumb. Rip, are you over 30 years, conservative and afraid of everything new, like new music scenes etc.? The older the man gets, the more hes willing to claim hes knowledge to be superior, because of "been there done that" claim? Every situtation is unique, you just _sometimes_ can make good estimates based on your earlier experiences.

World would be MUCH better place, if it were lead by less than 30 year old, freshly educated (as the science changes, but you dont), "free" and filled with energy types of youngsters. The "been there" type of thinking is just too narrow to be suitable for major decicions (knowing whats best for everybody, for example).

[This message has been edited by Tuomio (edited 04-26-2001).]

[jihad]

Wasnt it like this: Al Gore got majority of the votes and Bush got elected?

An incorrect statement, the final vote counts from Florida gave Bush the victory - even using the counting "criteria" the Gore campaign advocated.

[Ripsnort]

I was right, young dumb and full of C__  

[Tuomio]

No no i know the system (atleast the basics), which the leaders in the USA are elected. I just wanted to point out, that YOU dont elect anything, the electors elect and youll have to be satisfied for that or revolt. YOur votes are just a "signal" for the electors.

I dont believe any conspiracys or things like that, but i wonder, if someday theres man that electors dont want to vote, but the people wants? Whos interests will be on the stand?

Ripsnort, the man that says the arguments doesent matter, only the arguments matters. If you can only make your point by picking my age or something like that, is to admit, that you dont have anything to add.
And if you have something to add, but dont want to say that, keep yourself away from the discussion. So, what makes me dumb? My age? I mean, i mustve been read some propaganda, as i dont praise USA?

[Krusher]

Tuomio wrote:
a bunch of anti-American nonsense.
---------------------------------

Do yourself a favor and think before you spew. You have made it plain that ignorance really is bliss.

[Fatty]

 

I dont believe any conspiracys or things like that, but i wonder, if someday theres man that electors dont want to vote, but the people wants? Whos interests will be on the stand?

In some states they are bound to the polls' vote, their casting of it is a mere formality.  In others it is true they do actually cast the votes, but the electors themselves are selected by the respective parties and which goes depends on the popular vote of that state.

In other words it's not something we're likely to ever see that electors selected by the Democratic party vote for a Republican candidate despite the vote of that state, or vice versa.

[Yoj]

 

Originally posted by jihad:
Wasnt it like this: Al Gore got majority of the votes and Bush got elected?

An incorrect statement, the final vote counts from Florida gave Bush the victory - even using the counting "criteria" the Gore campaign advocated.

Also not quite accurate.  The final vote counts from Florida gave Bush the Electoral College win (ONLY using the Gore campaign's criteria - had the Bush criteria been used, Gore would have won), however, Gore still had a higher popular vote total, which is, I believe, what TUOMIO was referring to.

- Yoj

[Jack55]

The states elect the President.  It's up to each state to determine who they vote for. They could draw the name from a hat or pick the person with the brightest teeth.  They happed to have systems based on a statewide popular vote.

Wait long enough and there will be another big war.  Hopefully, it will be long after we are all dead from old age.

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
When we arrived at the Yala river, we met over 1 million Chinese.  Remember Chosen Reservoir?...the Chinese kicked our ass.

Yes, the Oval office did hesitate from escalation, but at that point, the only escalation was of one to nuclear exchange.

We didn't have cruise missiles then. They that control the air control the war. We control the air!

As for economically, the US can live without the Chinese junk/toys but they cannot live without our $$$$$$$$$$

But nothing will happen. It is all tough talk. China has to spew their line to "save face" with their people.

Eagler

[Krusher]

RIPSNORT wrote:
Within 5 years would be my timeline. China attacks Taiwan, US reacts, conventional war for about 6 months, escalating into nuclear war.

-------------------------------------------

Possibly in 25 years, but not before then and hopefully never.

China may want Taiwan for its very large and modern computer factories. (a very large part of all the PC parts in the world come from them) but they are better off building thier own on the mainland, and that will take time.

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Another comment:

Let's not forget who initiated this problem.  The Chinese have for several years been building up their missile, air, land, sea forces that can strike Taiwan, while spewing increasingly agressive rhetoric towards this Democracy.  Unfortunately the previous administration, either due to corruption or lack of testicular fortitude .....

Monica would argue this point  

I'm afraid it was the former.

Eagler