Taiwan holding war games for repelling Chinese invasion

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 9:20 am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... n_military

Taiwan is holding massive war games to simulate a Chinese invasion...ok good for them, but here is the funny part.

Taiwan's defense ministry warned last week that China would be capable of mounting a successful attack on Taiwan after 2008 if the island did not strengthen its defensive capabilities.

Lol, they actually think they have a prayer against china with their 44 F-16's and some missiles. Don't forget that China has warned to attack if Taiwan declared independance or indefinitely postponed reunification. Are they truly deluded or am I wrong and they can actually stop China if they decided they wanted to sqash them?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 5, 2003, 9:47 am

If China wanted to, they could make Tiawan go down like a 5 cent hooker with a hip problem. The only chance in hell they have is begging the US to come pull them out of the fire and that's Not a fight I want to see..

edit: my keyboard ignores the spacebar sometimes, yes.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 5, 2003, 10:01 am

Actually Taiwanhas an advantage in that they are protecting a small piece of land. China has an overwhelming number of troops but how many could they land at one time and coordinate successfully. On D-Day, the allies lost thousands of troops and although they eventually won, they did so in large part because Hitler thought the Allies were attacking elsewhere and pulled a lot of his troops out. Taiwan will know exactly where an attack will come and with radar technology they will have a warning. Also their air defenses are strong enough to prevent paratroopers or at least make that tactic very expensive. Taiwan also has a much higher level of technology in regards to communication than the chinese have.

Taiwan might lose in the end just because of attrition but not before thousands died in the process on both sides.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 5, 2003, 10:01 am

Akaran_D wrote:If China wanted to, they could make Tiawan go down like a 5 cent hooker with a hip problem. The only chance in hell they have is begging the US to come pull them out of the fire and that's Not a fight I want to see..

edit: my keyboard ignores the spacebar sometimes, yes.

Nobody is crazy enough to fight China so close to its borders. China's major weakness is mobilization, remove that and its hard to imagine anything standing up to them.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 10:05 am

Dreward I would agree with you but for one thing, small land to defend equates to prime real estate for just lobbing missiles and rockets over. They can shoot a Civil War cannon into Taiwan and it would inflict casualties, so imagine if they unleashed their arsenal, then simply rowed over troops to fight anything that still moved.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 5, 2003, 10:15 am

As much as everyone claims that air power is the all dominating tactic. It really isn't. In Iraq, the U.S. inflicted very few casualties on those troops who were dug into bunkers. Air power is great for open field targets. In the first Iraq War, America levelled a lot of buildings and infrastructure but they didn't hurt the military that much (barring tanks and other open field items). Most Iraqis just gave up.

China could launch enough missiles to level Taiwan but that would make Taiwan worthless to them. China wants Taiwan as another Hong Kong. A highly industrialized and technologically powerful city. If they reduced it to rubble then it would be nothing but another desert isle and it would just make those survivors fight even harder. I am not sure if China has artillery that will reach Taiwan. Anyone know the distance between the two? Americas best artillery has a range of about 25 miles if I remember right. My artillery units guns have a max range of 15 miles.

I still think China could win but they would have to expend a lot of manpower and conscript every fishing boat in their country to carry troops over.

Of course a few good gas bombs and nerve weapons would do the trick nicely.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 10:22 am

One thing is for certain, the war between those two is just about inevitable.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 5, 2003, 11:02 am

I think Japan has a large stake in Taiwan's continued independance. Where Japan goes, we go.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 5, 2003, 11:04 am

The article says that both China and Japan had spy ships too close to the war games which caused an early ending to it for fear that the spies would gather intel on their new missile capabilities. This is interesting to say the least

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 5, 2003, 12:37 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:One thing is for certain, the war between those two is just about inevitable.

I have one worry about WWIII, and this is it.
If China shows any signs of invasion, you bet your ass the good ole US of A will send a carrier group or four into the Taiwan Straits. If China is REALLY serious about this, which I think they are, they will HAVE to attack our ships. If this happens, I shudder to think what might go down.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 5, 2003, 1:54 pm

Skogen wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:One thing is for certain, the war between those two is just about inevitable.
I have one worry about WWIII, and this is it.
If China shows any signs of invasion, you bet your ass the good ole US of A will send a carrier group or four into the Taiwan Straits. If China is REALLY serious about this, which I think they are, they will HAVE to attack our ships. If this happens, I shudder to think what might go down.

That is exactly the US stance is on Taiwan. It's well known that China could take Taiwan with ease. The United States has repeatedly sent strong warnings to China and also has sent carrier groups close to the area on occasion. Without looking it up, I believe the US has made committments to defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 5, 2003, 3:37 pm

http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/2003/CNA-021703.htm

State Department Official Reaffirms U.S. Commitment to Taiwan

Central News Agency, Feb. 17, 2003

A senior Bush administration official reaffirmed Friday that the U.S. policy towards Taiwan and mainland China has been consistent and never changed for the past 20-plus years.

Addressing a breakfast session of the ongoing Taiwan-U.S. defense industry conference, Randall Schriver, deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said the U.S. policy towards Taiwan and mainland China is articulated in the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three U.S.-China joint Communiques, and the "Six Assurances" offered to Taiwan by former President Ronald Reagan in 1982.

"Our policy has been consistent for more than 20 years... It has not changed. It will not change," Schriver said.

He explained that the United States will neither seek to mediate between mainland China and Taiwan, nor will it exert pressure on Taiwan to come to the bargaining table.

Of course, he said, the United States is also committed to make available defensive arms and defensive services to Taiwan in order to help Taiwan meet its self-defense needs.

"A secure and self-confident Taiwan is a Taiwan that is more capable of engaging in political interaction and dialogue with the PRC (mainland China)," Schriver said.

Noting that the United States has been Taiwan's most reliable weaponry supplier, Schriver said the United States has provided Taiwan with a significant quantity of defensive weapons over the last 20 years.

"We continue to fulfill our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for Taiwan's legitimate defensive needs. We have assisted Taiwan's military modernization program. In doing so, the United States is careful to provide weapons that are defensive in nature and which would not destabilize the cross-(Taiwan) Strait situation," Schriver said.

Meanwhile, he said, the U.S. government remains committed to maintaining dialogue with Taiwan about its national security.

"The process through which we review Taiwan's defensive requirements has evolved from the annual Arms Sales Talks to a more normal process," Schriver said, adding that this new framework for dialogue more effectively meets practical requirements.

Schriver further said the U.S. government will never seek to improve its relations with mainland China at Taiwan's expense.

"We seek the reduction of cross-Strait tensions. We have called on the PRC to renounce the use of force and reduce military deployments targeted against Taiwan. We encourage the PRC to show more transparency in this area to build trust and reduce tensions across the Taiwan Strait," he stressed.

Schriver went on to say that the U.S. has an abiding interest, above all else, in the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences.

"It is our fundamental objective in our relations with Taiwan and the PRC," he said, adding: "To that end, we are very encouraged by the expansion of peaceful, mutually beneficial cross-Strait interactions in the areas of trade, investment, culture, and education."

Noting that Taiwan's ability to defend itself is essential to create the conditions that are conducive to peaceful cross-strait dialogue, Schriver urged Taiwan to take the steps needed to acquire defensive weapons and systems sufficient to address the ever increasing threat posed by mainland China.

He said modernization of Taiwan's command and control architecture continues to be a key priority to achieve this capability.

Additionally, Schriver said, acquiring modern systems for air and missile defense, and integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare capability are essential for Taiwan's self-defense as well as to provide an effective deterrence to potential adversaries.

Schriver said the differences between the PRC and Taiwan are fundamentally political, not social, economic, or military.

However, he said, Taiwan must be prepared for military contingencies as a last resort.

"The United States has a long-term interest in the peaceful resolution of cross-strait relationships. We are committed to help create the conditions for security that are conducive to political freedom and economic growth," he said.

Nevertheless, he said it is the responsibility of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to make that happen.

"Taiwan's military can help create and ensure the conditions for security and stability that foster cooperation and dialogue over coercion and conflict," he added.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 5, 2003, 4:44 pm

Curious what Kelgar's views are on this since I believe he's living/working there.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 5, 2003, 5:07 pm

taiwan only has to hold off a chinese invasion long enough for the united states to mobilize and assist them. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that taiwan is a protected nation under the united states. practically every president since kennedy has pledged to support taiwan against the chinese should they invade. taiwan are the anti-commies that kept the reds busy in asia throughout the cold war.

at any rate, china can't invade taiwan because the economic benefit of seizing the country back into their borders is dwarfed by the collosal impact US and UN sanctions would have against them. not to mention the war that would result. china is in the midst of downsizing and modernizing their military which will probably take at least another 10 years anyway.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 5, 2003, 5:13 pm

skybobo will beat the shit outa the chinese

but yeah, this could be a huge factor in WW3, but if China was serious about an invasion in taiwain, i would actually support the US if we chose to help

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 5, 2003, 5:16 pm

Xzion wrote:skybobo will beat the shit outa the chinese

but yeah, this could be a huge factor in WW3, but if China was serious about an invasion in taiwain, i would actually support the US if we chose to help

What about skypal? Can you get one without the other?

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » September 6, 2003, 2:52 pm

Curious what Kelgar's views are on this since I believe he's living/working there.

Yo, wassup Ash?

Perhaps 10+ years ago before mainland China's economy started incorporating more capitalist elements, the concerns were still legitimate. Nowadays, over 80% of the manufacturing/production facilities of all of Taiwan's tech companies have relocated to mainland China. Property values have gone down by roughly 50% in the more densely populated cities because there has been a mass exodus of people wanting to move back to the mainland.

I will moreorless say that WWIII doomsday scenarios are laughable at best. The Taiwan/PROC maneuverings of recent years is simply the chest beating from the proteges of the old timers who used to bray up each other's asses. Whenever Taiwan elects a president who campaigns on a pro-independent Taiwan platform (just to buy a few votes, they have no genuine desire to go through with an official declaration) the dipshits in the CCP always feel obliged to make some petty demonstration.

The general consensus is that Taiwan will eventually reunite, but assimilation will occur via economic rather than military means.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 6, 2003, 2:58 pm

There is only one end result to a China/US faceoff. Massive casualties and losses amongst the Chinese forces, and a loss of some fighters and bombers on the US side.

China would own the US if we shared a border with it like we do with Canada however there have very little capability to forward deploy all those millions of troopies. We on the otherhand specialize in fighting anywhere but on our own terrain.

I can just see the 500 converted cargo liners full of Chinese troops headed to the west coast and the smiling FA18 and F14 pilots sooting down their air cover and the A6 pilots laughing there ass off as the eliminated all of them.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 6, 2003, 3:05 pm

Chine would NEVER be stupid enough to do that. If they wanted to beat the US, they would cripple us from within. the movie "The Art of War" has a pretty nice view into it, not the best but hey its a decent movie.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 6, 2003, 3:54 pm

Kylere wrote:There is only one end result to a China/US faceoff. Massive casualties and losses amongst the Chinese forces, and a loss of some fighters and bombers on the US side.

China would own the US if we shared a border with it like we do with Canada however there have very little capability to forward deploy all those millions of troopies. We on the otherhand specialize in fighting anywhere but on our own terrain.

I can just see the 500 converted cargo liners full of Chinese troops headed to the west coast and the smiling FA18 and F14 pilots sooting down their air cover and the A6 pilots laughing there ass off as the eliminated all of them.

thanks general

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 8, 2003, 2:27 pm

China's got nukes & ICBM's to hurl them.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 8, 2003, 2:31 pm

Skogen go verify range on Chinese ICBM's and discover that losing Cally would not kill us as a nation, but going nuclear would allow us to win quite handily.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 8, 2003, 2:36 pm

listen to yourself.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 8, 2003, 2:47 pm

8,000 miles, and counting.

Also, remember the world is a sphere, and ICBMs could have a path that flies over the north pole. (as ours are/were with the Soviet Union)

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 8, 2003, 2:49 pm

Kylere wrote:Skogen go verify range on Chinese ICBM's and discover that losing Cally would not kill us as a nation, but going nuclear would allow us to win quite handily.

You're seriously not suggesting that if push comes to shove the USA wins "quite handily" a NUCLEAR WAR WITH CHINA because they can only destroy all of California??

Kelgar - thanks man, just the sort of insight I was looking for. Yeah, I can't see Taiwan being independent of the mainland forever anymore than I could see Hong Kong do so. Hope things are well in your world! Miss you in game. We need more monks in Time, we have so few!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 8, 2003, 2:55 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:
Kylere wrote:Skogen go verify range on Chinese ICBM's and discover that losing Cally would not kill us as a nation, but going nuclear would allow us to win quite handily.

You're seriously not suggesting that if push comes to shove the USA wins "quite handily" a NUCLEAR WAR WITH CHINA because they can only destroy all of California??

Kelgar - thanks man, just the sort of insight I was looking for. Yeah, I can't see Taiwan being independent of the mainland forever anymore than I could see Hong Kong do so. Hope things are well in your world! Miss you in game. We need more monks in Time, we have so few!

Well it would solve there Gov. issue.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 8, 2003, 3:17 pm

Well, since we're obviously talking about "Bizarro World" here, I propose that Arnold would be MUTATED by the radiation into a SUPER HERO named THE TERMINATOR who would then proceed to lay waste to the PRC until stopped by CHARLES XAVIER and the X-MEN who teach him that he should forgive and forget and not fight an unjust war because he's sad.

Then ROGUE tongue-kisses him and he shivels up and dies and she begins speaking with an Austrian accent.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 8, 2003, 4:06 pm

I would not view the loss of California as unacceptable to win a war against the most populous nation on the planet.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 8, 2003, 4:13 pm

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 8, 2003, 4:18 pm

Unless you live in CA.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 8, 2003, 4:26 pm

Kylere wrote:I would not view the loss of California as unacceptable to win a war against the most populous nation on the planet.

Uhh.........ok.

Ok, with that being said......We would loose more than Califirnia. Our entire economy would go directly into the shitter, and this country would fall into disarray, and loose its superpower status.

But we Nuked the shit out of China!!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 8, 2003, 4:58 pm

hehe that is a pretty ludicrous statement to say that the Pacific seaboard of the US is acceptable collateral damage.

what percentage of our economy would be effectively vaporized? 30%?

yeah that's smart.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » September 8, 2003, 5:04 pm

Kylere wrote:I would not view the loss of California as unacceptable to win a war against the most populous nation on the planet.

That's some cold-ass shit, plain and simple.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 8, 2003, 5:08 pm

Well, let us seriously examine the issue.

If we have to fight a war against the worlds largest military force, and probably 4-5th most effective overall. We lose use of less than 1% of our territory as a result. If you study military history that is getting off light.

I hate to break the bad news to you all being that you cannot conceive of a war that does not involve daily news reports and CNN correspondants, but WAR IS HELL, it sucks, people die, things are destroyed.

WAR is the LAST viable option, it only comes into play when diplomacy fails utterly and completely, as it has several times this century. Before some idiot screams Iraq, remember we tried appeasement for a decade with the dumb SOB's and they still were a problem. Ask England and France what the concept of appeasement cost them last century.

When war is the only option, then a realist thinks in terms of acceptable losses. The lost of the west coast et al, is an acceptable loss to defeat China in a total war.

Are you not aware that the former USSR considered 80% civilian losses to be an acceptable rate to defeat the US in a nuclear war?

China would not use the first nuke against the US, to do so would invite total destruction of their entire nation, and they would be unable to return such an attack. Nukes are a rotten strategic solution because of their all or nothing nature, but so many people only think of a Soviet force that could have caused Mutual Assured Destruction, no nation on earth could do 50% of the damage to the continental US that the former USSR could pull off. The US in turn would not use the first nuke against China, to do so would be insane, China could not defeat us using conventional or nuclear forces, and there would be no reason to use special weapons as a result.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 8, 2003, 5:11 pm

Voronwë wrote:hehe that is a pretty ludicrous statement to say that the Pacific seaboard of the US is acceptable collateral damage.

what percentage of our economy would be effectively vaporized? 30%?

yeah that's smart.

Collateral is incidental, I never implied that. The US would go on without the resources of the west coast, we would not cease to exist as a nation, China would.

I am not arguing the morality, merely the facts. Cold it may sound, that does not mean i want it to happen, nor do I wish it to happen, merely that it is true.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 8, 2003, 5:48 pm

Kylere wrote:
Voronwë wrote:hehe that is a pretty ludicrous statement to say that the Pacific seaboard of the US is acceptable collateral damage.

what percentage of our economy would be effectively vaporized? 30%?

yeah that's smart.
Collateral is incidental, I never implied that. The US would go on without the resources of the west coast, we would not cease to exist as a nation, China would.

I am not arguing the morality, merely the facts. Cold it may sound, that does not mean i want it to happen, nor do I wish it to happen, merely that it is true.

I had a long ass post on how you'd all starve without the food that comes from california and how, with the way the winds blow you'd all be fucked, but then I realized, it ain't worth my time, ignorance is bliss

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 8, 2003, 6:36 pm

- North Korea shocked the world when it fired a 3 stage test missile back in the late 90s.
- China has been able to hit the west coast of the US for over 20 years now.
- Recent examples of US intelligence hardly inspire confidence.

The west coast scenario is definitely a best case scenario, especially with the proposed US missile defense system motivating a rapid modernization of China's nuclear arsenal.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » September 9, 2003, 2:54 am

Kylere wrote:I would not view the loss of California as unacceptable to win a war against the most populous nation on the planet.

...and anything you ever will say is null and void from this point out.

22 million people.
7th largest economy IN THE WORLD.
Hundreds of thousands of military personnel.
Some of the largest ports in the world that bring unprecidented amounts of trade to the US.
22 million people.

Ends and means and nothing inbetween your ears.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » September 9, 2003, 8:17 am

Ashur [FoH] wrote:Well, since we're obviously talking about "Bizarro World" here, I propose that Arnold would be MUTATED by the radiation into a SUPER HERO named THE TERMINATOR who would then proceed to lay waste to the PRC until stopped by CHARLES XAVIER and the X-MEN who teach him that he should forgive and forget and not fight an unjust war because he's sad.

Then ROGUE tongue-kisses him and he shivels up and dies and she begins speaking with an Austrian accent.

ROFL. That made me spew my morning coffee.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 9, 2003, 9:30 am

Pahreyia wrote:
Kylere wrote:I would not view the loss of California as unacceptable to win a war against the most populous nation on the planet.
...and anything you ever will say is null and void from this point out.

22 million people.
7th largest economy IN THE WORLD.
Hundreds of thousands of military personnel.
Some of the largest ports in the world that bring unprecidented amounts of trade to the US.
22 million people.

Ends and means and nothing inbetween your ears.

22 Million is less than one tenth of the US population, the US would still be the largest economy in the world after the loss of California, hundreds of thousands of Military? not so, more like 50 thousand.

You still just do not fucking get it do you? I did not say it would be a GOOD THING, I did not say it would make liberal democrats dance with glee. I said it would be acceptable losses to defeat the worlds most populous country. THINK!!! I know this is a challenge in a world where you have to be spoon fed news stories in 10 words or less.

On another note for Pherr the clueless, Fallout patterns are accounted for, eastern Cali is not exactly overpopulated, western Nevada not exactly a hot spot and as for agriculture, the loss of 22 million people would more than balance the loss of production.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 9, 2003, 9:38 am

My inlaws live in California. Feel free to nuke it!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » September 9, 2003, 9:49 am

Kylere wrote:22 Million is less than one tenth of the US population, the US would still be the largest economy in the world after the loss of California, hundreds of thousands of Military? not so, more like 50 thousand.

You still just do not fucking get it do you? I did not say it would be a GOOD THING, I did not say it would make liberal democrats dance with glee. I said it would be acceptable losses to defeat the worlds most populous country. THINK!!! I know this is a challenge in a world where you have to be spoon fed news stories in 10 words or less.

...And for my money I think we could stand to see Manhattan sink into the ocean... Who the hell cares about that turd shaped island anyways?

Acceptable losses indeed. Why don't you take some time to figure out exactly how much food California grows in the Imperial Valley. I've lived on both ends of California and have driven the length of the state no less than 20 times. I'm about ready to pull my hair out if I've gotta spend another 7 hour stint staring at nothing but corn, apples, wheat and cows.

The loss of California would not only cripple the US economy, destroy half of our trade ports, kill 22 million people and blow our ability to grow food to hell, but A LOT of what california grows gets used as trade and relief foods. While we may be able to compensate for food by going to other states to grow it, much of our ability to supply food to outher countries for trade and relief packages would be gone.

And that would make Kyoukan have one more thing to bitch about. So, please, let us keep giving food to 3rd world countries so as not to hear about how our genetically modified rice not getting to Botswana is causing the deaths of hundreds of starving children.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2003, 9:52 am

Kelshara wrote:My inlaws live in California. Feel free to nuke it!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 9, 2003, 10:39 am

Pahreyia,

Compared to the only other Nuclear fight we could have had ( with the former USSR) it is acceptable losses. Compared to losing, it is an acceptble loss, compared to not aiding an ally with who we have had an alliance for half a century it is an acceptable loss.

If China moves on Taiwan, and we obliterate their pathetic Air Force ( their best bet is numbers but numbers mean shit to an F14 lauching Phoenix missiles from 110miles out) destroy their entire navy with one carrier task force (we could, go spend the money at Jane's or hit a library) they would be left with a HUGE army that could not do shit but start swimming at us or at Taiwan. At this point they could go nuclear or stand down. China is not a threat to Taiwan unless the US writes them off in exchange for keeping the peace, and if we wrote off Taiwan I would leave the damn country because it would no longer be a place I wanted to live.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 9, 2003, 1:46 pm

[quote="Kylere]

.. the US would still be the largest economy in the world after the loss of California .[/quote]

No fucking way. If Cali gets nuked, say bye-bye to the countries economy.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 9, 2003, 1:50 pm

If you lost 22 million people, I think we'd have enough food growing ability left because we'd have decreased demand.

That being said, the West -> East winds and fallout would TRULY fuck the rest of us.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 9, 2003, 1:53 pm

Skogen wrote:[quote="Kylere]

.. the US would still be the largest economy in the world after the loss of California .

No fucking way. If Cali gets nuked, say bye-bye to the countries economy.[/quote]

Umm Skogen why do you examine things in a vacuum, if Cali and China were nuked off the map, the world would enter an economic depression of unheard of magnitude, it would effect every single person on the planet. Afterwords the US would still be the economic super and the military power also.

BTW for the dumbfucks who want to message me, where did I ever say we should start a war, or kill chinese people. I said that IF they attacked us/taiwan. Christ this is a theoretical not a demand for us to kill a billion people.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 9, 2003, 2:18 pm

[quote="Kylere].

BTW for the dumbfucks who want to message me, where did I ever say we should start a war, or kill chinese people. I said that IF they attacked us/taiwan. Christ this is a theoretical not a demand for us to kill a billion people.[/quote]

LOL...yeah, the purpose of this thread is to kill a lot of Chinese people.

How lame.

Oh and yes, the whole worlds economy would go into a tailspin if Cali goes bye-bye. But saying that the USA would remain ontop is mere speculation.