| |
| | Post 81 |
| Primus Pilus | hope redleg allows this: REMOVED You guys think very static dont you?? please think progressive we must understand history and prepare for the future, sure china made mistakes, but these mistakes were actually good, because we learn from mistakes and this will prevent us from a bad decision mod edit: only english is allowed on the forum
__________________ A signature is a little text that can be added at the bottom of the posts you make. It\'s limited to 300 characters (size 7 to 12) on 5 line(s) and 1 image(s) with none larger than 100x500 pixels and for a maximum of 20Kb. In your text, no more than 100 characters without space too. |
| |
| | Post 82 |
| Immunes | I dont agree with arming China. The entire idea is kind of stupid anyways after Europe has seen how the USSR acted, and then China during the Korean War. Espically with the remote possibility of the US and western European powers taking long hard looks at N. Korea now because of it's nuke program, do we really want to risk arming people that have sided with the enemy before, espically right before we could start looking at them as a hostile military target? I think China has stopped really acting Communist though, I see it as they are communist in name and a few areas (state run media, etc), but they act very capitalist and are more successful than traditional communist states. However, arming them is asking for trouble, espically when they are large, have a decent standing army and we have a regular fleet of vessels defending Tiawan that could make a good opening statement, not to mention bases and allies in Japan, S. Korea and Tiawan. Arming China could seriously destabilize the region espically if America and other militaries have to look at N. Korea as hostile soon.
__________________ \"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of b******t.\" -- General George Patton Jr |
| |
| | Post 83 |
| Primus Pilus | arming china?? as in europe arming china?? please, why would we want euro weapons?? |
| |
| | Post 84 |
| Primus Pilus | As I posted months ago, things have been misunderstood about Europe's intentions. The EU Customs will strictly monitor of what is sold to China.
__________________ ![]() Cogito ergo sum |
| |
| | Post 85 | |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Quote:
__________________ "It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!! "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase | |
| |
| | Post 86 |
| Primus Pilus | in consideration with weapons, russia is different than china in a way, its mutual relationship, their sales give them money, and we gaing technology and weapons the reasons we like russian weapons is because they are innovative and like someone said in this forum, its reliable and doesnt cost as much plus, we got used to the russian sytem |
| |
| | Post 87 | |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Quote:
| |
| |
| | Post 88 |
| No Chance Outside | "We don't need Euro weapons" is an arrogant statement for people still relying heavily on Russian weaponary.
__________________ I don't exist. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSTITUTED ![]() Next time you travel http://www.epictrip.com |
| |
| | Post 89 | |
| Primus Pilus | Quote:
| |
| |
| | Post 90 |
| Primus Pilus | lol redneck 13 you should know something about russian weapons russian weapons are pretty cool, out of th eordinary like the su-27 they can be beautiful and poweful as well, but most of the time they are emphasized on relibility and capabilities, it doesnt matter how good it looks russian weapons designer are top of the line man, remember america's weapons capability cant always win when there is some ivan trying to find a way to counter that weapon on the whole id rather have a russian tank than american tank,. why??/ because it is more reliable, has more fuel efficiency, better cross country capabilities and most of all, powerful in modern battlefield, those who think in strategy only cannot win, those thinking in high tech cannot win, but those who think both wins, yet those who emphasize only in one part of high tech cannot win, and those who empahsize on varities in high tech definetly wins along with strategy |
| |