Harper's cabinet mulls massive Chinese resource project in Arctic

[1USA1]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:

<quoted text>
you are very fcuken stupid...
that debt you speak of is your sovereign debt...US bonds that are freely tradable on your secondary markets
sure China may hold a trillion of that debt...
but YOU the US PEOPLE are directly/indirectly owed too by your US government 10 trillion dollars...
things like your Social Security whose reserves of 2.3 trillion US dollars... has a big fat IOU in a special form of that Treasury Debt...
plus if the USA were to default on your debt... China whose Reserves are around 4 trillion 1.8 trillion of that in Bonds and US dollars
can just dump its US dollars and Debt.... causing a rise in its other currencies like its own,...
the Chinese people whose wealth is now at 20 trillion USD equivalent... whose money is in Renminbi
will see its currency rise 30% to 50% giving its people more buying power to buy up the USA for cheap...
plus if the USA were dumb enough to default... since the late 80s and the involvement of Vulture funds...
countries who default on their debt can be tied up in court for years...
just look at Argentina who defaulted on 100 billion, was unable to issued new debt... because holders of just 30 billion of that debt, unhappy with the debt-restructuring held it up for 8 years in court...
you do not want to give China the ability to tie you up in court for years
but then we all know class action happy americans... are not going to allow their government to screw them over for 10 trillion dollars.... so they would be the first to sue...

It wouldn't matter after China was turned into a crater, little slave. <¦-o

[RESISTANCE IS FUTILE]

1USA1 wrote:

<quoted text>It wouldn't matter after China was turned into a crater, little slave. <¦-o

^ example of a stupid white trash who just lost a debate....

yes lets go to war because we owe China money... fcuken retard.... who the hell would be dumb enough to lend you money after that....

btw RETARD.... these days China has nukes too... enough to destroy the world 1 time over...

even though they kicked your a$$$ in Korea....

such stupid white trash aMERICAN

btw if your going to use a "how many people killed metric" when you had land, air and sea superiority in Korea

Vietnam war

Casualties....

United States
58,220 dead;[A 2] 303,644 wounded[A 2]

China
1,446 dead; 4,200 wounded

[Cana]

Canada is intelligent...i really like C'C!

[Whisgean Zoda]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:

<quoted text>
Casualties....
United States
58,220 dead;[A 2] 303,644 wounded[A 2]
China
1,446 dead; 4,200 wounded

AHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA Yep, typical propagandist, only tell half the story.
The Chinese military involvement was limited to military advisors, AA units and some engineering battalions.

The CIA had estimated there were about 15,000 Chinese serving in Vietnam in advisory, technical and garrison capacities, NOT as combat troops.

In fact nowhere does it say that Chinese soldiers fought as combat troops in Vietnam.

[Canadians Love Anal Sex]

Everyday another canadian is found trying to sneak in to a elementary school without any pants on.

[1USA1]

Cana wrote:

Canada is intelligent...i really like C'C!

Unlike you, little retard. <¦-o

[fuzzy old canada]

according to new surveys, canada has the most number of gays per 100,000 in the world. this explains why they just have a picture of their butt on their drivers license. and the strange thing is people can recoignise them by their butt.

[1USA1]

RESISTANCE DISTORTS THE TRUTH wrote:

<quoted text>
^ example of a stupid white trash who just lost a debate....
yes lets go to war because we owe China money... fcuken retard.... who the hell would be dumb enough to lend you money after that....
btw RETARD.... these days China has nukes too... enough to destroy the world 1 time over...
even though they kicked your a$$$ in Korea....
such stupid white trash aMERICAN
btw if your going to use a "how many people killed metric" when you had land, air and sea superiority in Korea
Vietnam war
Casualties....
United States
58,220 dead;[A 2] 303,644 wounded[A 2]
China
1,446 dead; 4,200 wounded

More commie bullshit, from a stilted little China man. <¦-o

[RESISTANCE IS FUTILE]

Whisgean Zoda wrote:

<quoted text>
AHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA Yep, typical propagandist, only tell half the story.
The Chinese military involvement was limited to military advisors, AA units and some engineering battalions.
The CIA had estimated there were about 15,000 Chinese serving in Vietnam in advisory, technical and garrison capacities, NOT as combat troops.
In fact nowhere does it say that Chinese soldiers fought as combat troops in Vietnam.

big mouth talker...

just making a point... since most people on your side talk about kill ratios...

like the Korean war forgetting that other troops died in the Korean war too..

and how using kill ratios is a poor metric when it comes to war...like the Vietnam war

.
.

Additionally the Chinese anti-aircraft artillery troops, peaking at a total of 17 divisions and 150,000 men in 1967, would claim credit for downing 1,707 U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcent...

.
.
Vietnam War

Strength
China: 170,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[Tasmaniac]

I like how you guys quote all the planes you shot down. In the Korean War NK and China shot more planes down than were actually sent there lol

[1USA1]

RESISTANCE IS A CHI COM wrote:

<quoted text>
big mouth talker...
just making a point... since most people on your side talk about kill ratios...
like the Korean war forgetting that other troops died in the Korean war too..
and how using kill ratios is a poor metric when it comes to war...like the Vietnam war
.
.
Additionally the Chinese anti-aircraft artillery troops, peaking at a total of 17 divisions and 150,000 men in 1967, would claim credit for downing 1,707 U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcent...
.
.
Vietnam War
Strength
China: 170,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Too bad we didn't kill more of your comrades, little pig. How's the air smell in Beijing, slave? BTW have you voted lately, slob? <¦-o

[Becky]

1USA1 wrote:

<quoted text>Too bad we didn't kill more of your comrades, little pig. How's the air smell in Beijing, slave? BTW have you voted lately, slob? <¦-o

The reason the air in Beijing smells bad is because they've taken all your industry. You're left with a hollow economy that could collapse in on itself at any time.

[Cana]

The arctic now that it's possible to access underwater resources...should be treated much the same way as Antarctica.

[1USA1]

Becky wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason the air in Beijing smells bad is because they've taken all your industry. You're left with a hollow economy that could collapse in on itself at any time.

All it takes, is a new administration to put forth business friendly policies and new industry would start up in America. Contrary to what your political philosophies lend you to believe it's not a finite resource, that's there's only so much of. <¦-o

[Whisgean Zoda]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:

<quoted text>
big mouth talker...
just making a point... since most people on your side talk about kill ratios...
like the Korean war forgetting that other troops died in the Korean war too..
and how using kill ratios is a poor metric when it comes to war...like the Vietnam war
.
.
Additionally the Chinese anti-aircraft artillery troops, peaking at a total of 17 divisions and 150,000 men in 1967, would claim credit for downing 1,707 U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam.

Soooo basically 150,000 REMFs. You left out the part where none of the Chinese troops were used south of the 21st parallel.
Then the numbers game. It took 150,000 Chinese to shoot down 1700-3400 pilots. Hell, that was an average week for the Germans in WW2 sans the technology.

Now, of the number shot down, 110 were choppers which means they weren't brought down by Chinese manned SAMs. Considering the US flew 5.25 million sorties over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we can also assume other combat losses weren't Chinese inflicted. On top of that, it's a loss ratio of approximately 0.4 per 1000 sorties. Compare that to the horrendous losses in WW2 where the USAAF had a loss ratio of 9.7/1000 sorties.

The US would take a 0.4/1000 loss ratio every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.

[1USA1]

Whisgean Zoda wrote:

<quoted text>
Soooo basically 150,000 REMFs. You left out the part where none of the Chinese troops were used south of the 21st parallel.
Then the numbers game. It took 150,000 Chinese to shoot down 1700-3400 pilots. Hell, that was an average week for the Germans in WW2 sans the technology.
Now, of the number shot down, 110 were choppers which means they weren't brought down by Chinese manned SAMs. Considering the US flew 5.25 million sorties over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we can also assume other combat losses weren't Chinese inflicted. On top of that, it's a loss ratio of approximately 0.4 per 1000 sorties. Compare that to the horrendous losses in WW2 where the USAAF had a loss ratio of 9.7/1000 sorties.
The US would take a 0.4/1000 loss ratio every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.

RIF's response-SILENCE....Followed by (Sound of crickets).....

[watch ur butt in canada]

A huge number of engineering companies have been busy making iron guard plates for the back of mens trousers to stop them getting rammed by randy canadians. its become a real problem and foreign visitors arent used to such things.

[RESISTANCE IS FUTILE]

1USA1 wrote:

<quoted text>Too bad we didn't kill more of your comrades, little pig. How's the air smell in Beijing, slave? BTW have you voted lately, slob? <¦-o

loudmouth Americans got your A$$$ kicked by the Chinese in KOREA, and VIETNAM'''

[RESISTANCE IS FUTILE]

Whisgean Zoda wrote:

<quoted text>
Soooo basically 150,000 REMFs. You left out the part where none of the Chinese troops were used south of the 21st parallel.
Then the numbers game. It took 150,000 Chinese to shoot down 1700-3400 pilots. Hell, that was an average week for the Germans in WW2 sans the technology.
Now, of the number shot down, 110 were choppers which means they weren't brought down by Chinese manned SAMs. Considering the US flew 5.25 million sorties over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we can also assume other combat losses weren't Chinese inflicted. On top of that, it's a loss ratio of approximately 0.4 per 1000 sorties. Compare that to the horrendous losses in WW2 where the USAAF had a loss ratio of 9.7/1000 sorties.
The US would take a 0.4/1000 loss ratio every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.

still dosent change the fact that the Chinese were involved in the conflict... you just like to pretend american never bombed North of the 21st parallel....

and those Chinese troops wouldnt specifically be sitting ducks...for retaliatory strikes..

.
.

A Wild Weasel was an aircraft originally concepted by the United States Air Force under a program headed by General Kenneth Dempster in 1965 after the introduction of Soviet SAM missiles and their downing of U.S. strike aircraft over the skies of North Vietnam.[1] These aircraft were specially equipped with radar seeking missiles, and tasked with destroying the radars and SAM installations of enemy air defense systems.[2][3]

[RESISTANCE IS FUTILE]

BTW look at you Whisgean Zoda....

talking kill ratios against rice farmers in the Vietnam war...