Real Scary

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Pappy, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. Pappy

    Pappy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Outta Here
  2. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yeah, if it's true (and it's at least plausible), then bush has done us no favors by leaving us in a state of military weakness and financial depletion. Oh, did I mention who was buying our debts in war bonds lately?
     
  3. Steve26

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Hampshire + Massachusetts
    Erm ... it might be scary if it were at least slightly plausible. Dontcha think that if the Chinese wanted more "living space" they might consider invading their immediate neighbor to the north, which has three times the land mass of the US and a military that can't even rescue its own sailors from downed submarines??

    Steve
     
  4. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    this guy is my new hero. I'm moving to beijing.
     
  5. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    well, achieving the 500m figure would involve killing off more than half their OWN people, so I doubt it. the 20% quote obviously refers to the fact that almost exactly 20% of the human race is - you guessed it - chinese.
     
  6. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    China wants the Us for two reasons. Once, our land is the most plentiful. Now at 300 million, I am sure it has the capiacity to support many more. Most of Russua north of China is Siberia, a land that won't support that many more people.

    Also, the US is the world leader right now. It was stated that there isn't room for two tigers. In another words, the US must be done away with in order for China to become the new world leader.

    This is alarming. We are fighting a poor country that had no designs on the US. Meanwhile, North Korea and China are planning a future military attack on us and we just look the other way.

    The only thing that can save us is for Dick Chenny to "think" that there are lots of oil wells or oil fields in North Korea and China. WE would be at war in a matter of months. Bush?? He doesn't know. Cheney and associates have been running this country ever since Bush got elected the first time.
     
  7. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thankfully, the Hal Turner Show is known to be a racist rag.
     
  8. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Imagine if you possibly can....a nation's leadership desperate to stay in power uses belligerent rhetoric to unite people in a common, yet ridiculous, cause. Hardliners say and do ridiculous things that their constituents like, while the rest of the country mostly ignores them. Sound familiar?

    China is not in a position to dictate war terms to the United States. As for the aforementioned debt that China is amassing on the United States: China's leaders are acting exactly like every other country's do, in their own self-interest. While it may appear that China is buying up U.S. bonds to put us over a barrel, they're actually doing it for economic reasons. Keeping the yuan artificially low against the dollar maintains China's export-driven economy. Every year millions of impoverished Chinese leave the countryside for jobs in the cities, and only the export boom makes them available. China's leaders worry greatly that if the economy slows down, social unrest will threaten them.

    Obviously, at some point it will become counterproductive for them to keep investing in American debt. Whether they change their mind for economic or political reasons, that move would hurt their economy at least as much as ours and probably a lot more.
     
  9. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Aloofman, I agree that their primary motivation is economic, certainly. I just don't think it's much of a stretch of the imagination to see this as a potential "bargaining chip" in the future. I don't blame any government for being self-interested, that's their supposed purpose. I just wish ours was- on behalf of the people instead of on behalf of the politicians.
     
  10. Steve26

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Hampshire + Massachusetts
    I'd never heard of him before, but yep, it was pretty clear to me that he's a xenophobic scaremonger.

    Steve
     
  11. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    whatever; I still wholeheartedly support anyone who is serious about purging 80% of the human race.
     
  12. Steve26

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Hampshire + Massachusetts
    And would you be in the 80% or the 20%?? Maybe we should start a poll on this ...

    Steve :dilemma:
     
  13. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    And would you be in the 80% or the 20%??
    [post=337459]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    does it really matter?
     
  14. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    does it really matter?
    [post=337462]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    The most humane way to bring our population under control is to limited the number of births. The population will then be reduced over time. I am not sure that we need to reduce the world population by 80 percent in every country. I would think that each country has its own needs. Canada the second largest nation in land size has only 35 million people. Their needs are different from
    China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Those nations are seriously overcrowded.
     
  15. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    I think the question of how many people each nation should ideally contain is very much secondary to the question of HOW MANY HUMANS CAN I EXTERMINATE
     
  16. CUBE

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7,327
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The OC
    ...and yet the Chinese will have the newest Disneyland soon..hmmmm
     
  17. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    God, I hope you are trying to be funny! Because if you are for real, that would male you intrincally evil, worse than Hitler. To favor the murder of four billion people is absolutely horrendous.
     
  18. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    At least in the U.S., I think the most humane way would be to limit immigration, which is the main source of population growth here. If we limited immigration to a few hundred thousand per year, the nation's total population would level off about 50 years later and stay fairly stable. Of course, then there'd be a real Social Security crisis instead of the current fake one.

    As far as limiting births goes, it's already been a surprisingly successful campaign worldwide. Mexico's birthrate has been cut in half in less than 50 years, for example. There are really only a handful of places around the world that are projected to get much more overcrowded than they are now. (Unfortunately, all those places are poor.) Birthrates are dropping everywhere already, to the point where many demographers are worrying that many poor countries will get old before they get rich. China is starting to already, although that's an extreme case, since it's population control policy was enforced through harassment and terrorism.
     
  19. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    God, I hope you are trying to be funny! Because if you are for real, that would male you intrincally evil, worse than Hitler. To favor the murder of four billion people is absolutely horrendous.
    [post=337500]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    um, well no, not really. it would be far better to humanely purge the species than to sit back and wait for war, famine and pandemic disease on an unprecedented scale, which is precisely what will happen if we don't get a serious and effective handle on human overpopulation very soon. I would far rather 4 billion people died quickly and without prolonged suffering tomorrow, than 40 billion in despair, agony and squalor over the next century or so.

    there's also the fact that the number of worthwhile people on this planet is considerably lower than 1 in 5 anyhow, so it's not only a humanitarian concern.
     
  20. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Of course, who will decide who is useful?

    Anyway, the countries with the highest populations are also the ones that every western country outsources to, so nuking their population will result in more expensive goods and actually PAYING for services. Can't see that happening.

    Also, countries with highest birth rates are in extreme poverty. Guess Bono may have a point somewhere, oh well.

    Anyway, the US attack a country that
    1) it outsources cheap labour to
    2) spends lots of money on
    3) has an army better than a rag tag piece of shit that the Swiss army could have dominated?

    Nah.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted