Ever since I heard an American say that "revolution is illegal," I have completely lost faith that people in Western countries can overthrow their governments on their own.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
The failed uranium extraction mission really made him loose it, honestly this would be the right time for people in the US to exercise their 2th amendment, and you could also exercise the 25th but Trumps cabinet is full of Israeli agents so i highly doubt anyone would dare to invoke it or go along with it.
As i mentioned sometimes ago about my "civilians and friendly" conversation with Swedish about how his country turn into sh*thole. Sum up is he acknowledged that the corrupted politician leader brought in 3rd worlds refugee and only way to solve it is revolution. Yet he countinue with the meek bullshit is they can't have armed ppl rise up and brought down those rook politicians because whatever. Yeah dude it the ultimate meaning of revolution and only thing will work yet you refuse to do do! Then shut the fck up and enjoy the shit show for eternity.
What happened to the second ammendment people?
60 years ago leftist were using the second ammendment to fight against corperations and Police
Ironically California's retarded gun laws originate from Ronald Reagon (The president of the NRA at that time) who passed laws banning open carry.
But it seems the left is the one ironically holding up the 2A because there is a saying I heard of "If you go far left enough you get your guns back"
Lethe
Captain
I would note that this is not a particularly novel perspective from the Papacy. From Pope Francis:
"We have created new idols [….] the worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of a deified market lacking a truly human purpose."
“Those who believe in the panacea of trickle-down economics express a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system."
Or even Pope John Paul II, so beloved by American Cold Warriors:
“With the collapse of the Communist system […] there is a risk that a radical capitalist ideology could spread which refuses even to consider the material problems of humanity, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”
Last edited:
Name calling doesn't make your arguments "better". It is important to be respectful towards people who wants PRC's best.
No one wants another Century of Humiliation.
And I am fully aware of the fact that you have more people agreeing with you on this forum regarding this topic, but that is completely irrelevant as last time I checked, this forum doesn't have 1,45 billion people or members.
On other forums, people may agree more with me. So it's irrelevant.
2) Furthermore, your reply seems to focus extremely on the number I mentioned for the DPRK (30%). I never said that PRC should spend 30%. I encourage you to find where did I say that. I have stated couple of times previously that PRC need to spend around 2 Trillion PPP, which is just above 4% of GDP PPP.
In case of DPRK, they had - and still have to - spend around 30% in order to secure their own existence. During 1990, when USSR was no more, DPRK still survived and are in much better position today compared to 1990s. Russia, on the other hand, is suffering from traitors they allowed to take power in 1985, and is battling a second-largest or rather second-most powerful country in the former USSR which is fully backed by NATO. DRPK had to come to assist Russia in order to clean out the area between Sumy and Sudzha.
Hence, there is a big chance that DPRK would not have existed by the time George Bush jr took the office if DPRK had followed the idea of spending less than 2% on defence. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush jr had plans to strike DPRK in some way or another during 1990s and 2000s before Obama tok office.
I feel you're not much grateful of the sacrifice that DPRK is doing, a sacrifice that benefits PRC and keeping U.S. troops away from the PRC border.
3) Let me tell you where the PRC leadership has finally understood what I was saying previously, and that is increasing the number of nuclear weapons as much as PRC is able to do. I have always felt that 200 or 300 nukes is pathetic for a superpower, and as you can see, PRC leadership is following the line I agree with in the area of nuclear build-up.
PRC must have and should have a 4-digit number of nuclear warheads. As fast as possible.
So let me ask you: do you agree or disagree with the fact that PRC has started to expand nuclear warheads considerably? Because I fully agree with PRC that PRC should do this and PRC is simply doing it.
So the area where I disagree so far with the PRC leadership, are the number of conventional weapons. There should be much more of this as well.
4) Finally, in order to comment the "EXACTLY" comment you mentioned, whether or PRC spends 4% on defence is simply a number I think would be sufficient to match what the U.S. has.
What we do know so far is that what PRC spends on conventional weapons is not enough compared to the economic and industrial strength PRC has to produce even more weapons.
As long as PRC doesn't have anything near 25+ Virginia SSNs, 75+ Arleigh Burke destroyers, at least 10 super carriers, several LHA / LHD of the Type 076 (just 1 so far), several hundred tankers and strategic transports along with 1.000+ (planning 2.400) stealth fighters, then PRC is not spending enough.
Zero stealth bombers from PRC so far as well. H-20 no where to be seen.
So, whatever needs to be spent to reach the level of what U.S. has in its arsenal, needs to be spent, whether or not that is "just 2,5 or 3%, or 4%.
Neither you or I know what number (percentage) needs to be spent to match the U.S. conventionally, however, it is very clear that today's spending is not enough.
I do fully agree with PRC expanding their nuclear arsenal as fast as possible, and PRC is doing just that, so full agreement here.
A 4-digit number of nuclear warheads will very soon be the reality by 2030.
The disagreement is in regards to conventional assets.
Holy crap, dude is on suicide watch right now.
My condolences to the bathroom.