I actually agree totally with Larry Ohio on this one.  The key point is that the Chinese have an enourmous amount of patience.  They will wait until they think the time is right, as long as they have to.  To mass an army on the southern border of the US would take *years*, even with the help of a cooperative Mexican government.  Keep in mind that *years* from now our Army will continue to be deployed in Syria and Iran, with very little reserves left to defend the southern border.

The land campaign against the US would be interesting, as the Colorado River forms an impressive natural barrier, so I would think that the main thrust would be into California.  There are a lot of untapped natural resources there (here) as well.

Now, all that said, why would the chicoms even want to invade the US?  Who knows.  But I believe it is possible.

-Gator

The war will grow slowly as terrorist start to hit U.S. targets with more frequency. There will be a split on how the public views how to handle it, much like the split about the iraq war, only worse. Eventually the liberals will cut a deal with the terrorist and side with them. The end will find very few liberals OR terrorist within our borders.

Quoted: If you would, please explain for me: a) How the Chinese Army could support in any way, shape or fashion the logistical requirements for a deployed 1 million man army.

Prepositioned supplies.  As mentioned above.

b) Would it be accomplished by air?  If so, how could they arrive unopposed past our air defense assets?  If by sea, how could they slip by the world's most capable navy?

Prepositioned supplies, shipped like the other ten million tons of stuff every year.  PREpositioned, our navy wouldn't have anything to do.

c) How would the Chinese Army (using obsolete equipment) defeat a technologically superior opponent?  Specifically, how does a T-72 defeat an M-1 Abrams?  Please contrast this with the success of the T-72 in Iraq.

A:  Numbers.  Quantity has a quality all it's own.
B:  I didn't say they do this next month; they *will* come up with better stuff..
BTW, they have better than a T72 right now.  They can probably defeat an Abrams; the only non-aligned country that can.

d) What has been the extent of the training of the Chinese army in the art of maneuver warfare?  Please highlight this against any past Chinese military successes in say....oh, the last 30 years.

That kind of thinking is silly in itself.
China can do more than you think; they don't have to beat a contender to earn the right to the champ.  Do you know that they can't?  Isn't that unknowable until it is proven one way or another?

Using this argument we couldn't beat Germany in WWII either, could we?

The question was what might happen, not what was doable tomorrow.


Larry

Quoted: The WIC and food stamp bill would be killer.  How about a territory instead? Larry

Amend it... hell, if they're legal they would at least have to qualify for it... Couldn't be any worse than how much money is pissed away to illegals.

Those numbers on the Chinese are nutty. Sounds like nukes and MOABs would be appropriate. I'm sure the threat of us using them is a little more real to them since we already dropped 2 on their neighbors...

We could always trade Kali for Mexico... and then break it off and let it float away. At least if it were surrounded by other states there wouldn't be a constant flow coming from below like Mexico.

yes, tom..... the pie eaters will conquer the pie haters once and for all!!!!!

This is how it will happen:

Another "terroist" attack.
The Bush Admin will demand more power and more loss of our liberties.  Bush will continue praising his Patriot Act (II).  The majority of the populas will willing hand over more freedom for supposed security.  Those that disent are categorized as liberals or aiding Alqueda.  Bush will counter those disenting that if we don't push this legislation thru more "terroist" attacks will occur.  Funny, I wonder who keeps perpetrating these attacks?!

Meanwhile, the majority will never actually READ what the Patriot Act says--like:

“any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”)
War PROTESTERS will be jail as terroists.

SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

source: INFOWARS.com

Quoted: Quoted: If you would, please explain for me: a) How the Chinese Army could support in any way, shape or fashion the logistical requirements for a deployed 1 million man army. Prepositioned supplies.  As mentioned above.

It is simply ludicrous to believe that you can "hide" the supplies required to maintain a one million man army.  

b) Would it be accomplished by air?  If so, how could they arrive unopposed past our air defense assets?  If by sea, how could they slip by the world's most capable navy? Prepositioned supplies, shipped like the other ten million tons of stuff every year.  PREpositioned, our navy wouldn't have anything to do.

See above.

c) How would the Chinese Army (using obsolete equipment) defeat a technologically superior opponent?  Specifically, how does a T-72 defeat an M-1 Abrams?  Please contrast this with the success of the T-72 in Iraq. A:  Numbers.  Quantity has a quality all it's own. B:  I didn't say they do this next month; they *will* come up with better stuff.. BTW, they have better than a T72 right now.  They can probably defeat an Abrams; the only non-aligned country that can.

The Iraqis had "numbers" on their side.  In GW1, they had a 2-1 numerical advantage over us.  That sort of "quality" didn't help them a bit.  As far as them having a tanks better than the T-72, let me give you a URL that should provide you with a bit more insight to that statement.

www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/pla-inventory.htm

China's advancements in tank technology is hardly awe-inspiring.  I refer you to the numbers of tanks that they have in their inventory.  The majority of thier armor is substandard to what we faced in the deserts of Iraq.  

As far as their "better" tanks go, they have been upgrading the same old sorry T-55 design for years and it's hardly a match.  I refer you to the success of the Iraqis again.  Much of their armor came from.....China.

d) What has been the extent of the training of the Chinese army in the art of maneuver warfare?  Please highlight this against any past Chinese military successes in say....oh, the last 30 years. That kind of thinking is silly in itself. China can do more than you think; they don't have to beat a contender to earn the right to the champ.  Do you know that they can't?  Isn't that unknowable until it is proven one way or another? Using this argument we couldn't beat Germany in WWII either, could we? The question was what might happen, not what was doable tomorrow. Larry

Show me an army that effectively trains and I'll show you an army that can fight.  China has yet to prove that.  The only recent success the Chinese military has demonstrated has been over college students in Tianamen Square.  I'd like to refer you to China's attempt to punish Viet Nam approximately 20 years (or so) ago.  They sought to lead a border incursion against the Vietnamese.  The Vietnamese were happy to hand the Chinese their collective asses and send them back over their border.  

Here's another URL that could provide some insight for you:

www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/pla-intro.htm

and a quote from this site:

Traditionally, China's ground forces have been highly cohesive, patriotic, physically fit, and well trained in basic skills. In addition, they are generally strong in operational and communications security, as well as in the use of camouflage, concealment, and deception. Major weaknesses are lack of transport and logistic support. Ground force leadership, training in combined operations, and morale are poor. Most soldiers who enter the army are peasants with a poor education, and one-third of China’s ground forces leave active duty each year. Consequently, the PLA lacks a large body of experienced professional soldiers who are trained to operate sophisticated equipment. The PLA is still a party army with nepotism and political/family connections continuing to predominate in officer appointment and advancement. The soldiers, for the most part, are semi-literate rural peasants; there is no professional NCO corps, per se. Military service, with its low remuneration and family disruption, is increasingly seen as a poor alternative to work in the private sector. China's leadership is aware of these weaknesses and is trying to address them in its overall modernization program. Thus, increasingly in the future, officers likely will be promoted on merit as opposed to connections, and the ratio of higher educated volunteer servicemen to conscripts likely will increase.

This hardly seems to be the intimidating force that you propose it to be.  I find it to be quite a stretch of imagination that this force could stand toe-to-toe with a US battle-hardened opponent....and that's even assuming the Chinese could overcome the enormous logistical hurdles proposed earlier.

This entire premise is ludicrous.

Quoted: Quoted: If you would, please explain for me: a) How the Chinese Army could support in any way, shape or fashion the logistical requirements for a deployed 1 million man army. Prepositioned supplies.  As mentioned above. b) Would it be accomplished by air?  If so, how could they arrive unopposed past our air defense assets?  If by sea, how could they slip by the world's most capable navy? Prepositioned supplies, shipped like the other ten million tons of stuff every year.  PREpositioned, our navy wouldn't have anything to do. c) How would the Chinese Army (using obsolete equipment) defeat a technologically superior opponent?  Specifically, how does a T-72 defeat an M-1 Abrams?  Please contrast this with the success of the T-72 in Iraq. A:  Numbers.  Quantity has a quality all it's own. B:  I didn't say they do this next month; they *will* come up with better stuff.. BTW, they have better than a T72 right now.  They can probably defeat an Abrams; the only non-aligned country that can. d) What has been the extent of the training of the Chinese army in the art of maneuver warfare?  Please highlight this against any past Chinese military successes in say....oh, the last 30 years. That kind of thinking is silly in itself. China can do more than you think; they don't have to beat a contender to earn the right to the champ.  Do you know that they can't?  Isn't that unknowable until it is proven one way or another? Using this argument we couldn't beat Germany in WWII either, could we? The question was what might happen, not what was doable tomorrow. Larry

This a total paranoid fantasy.

Anyone who doubts the Chinese should take a trip to Panama.


Bring your Mandarin-English dictionary if you do.

Quoted: Anyone who doubts the Chinese should take a trip to Panama. Bring your Mandarin-English dictionary if you do.

...and how many countries lie between Panama and the United States?

Quoted: Anyone who doubts the Chinese should take a trip to Panama. Bring your Mandarin-English dictionary if you do.

A large Chinese population and a million man fully equiped army ready for a thousand mile over land invasion just to reach our border are too different animals.

WTF

Quoted: Quoted: But when it comes, those on this site will be safe and ready. Nobody wants to terrorize the guy who can hit you out to 400 yards with a rifle. 400?!?!  400??!?!? son, I won't even SHOOT at you if your under 400!

That was a rather inane comment.

While the best shooters (military snipers AND civilian match shooters) score X's at 1000 with 7.62mm system regularly, hit probability for an average 11B with an M16A2 and iron sights beyond 300 yards is pretty low.  A civilian who can make consistent hits at 400 yards is at least as good as an 11B and certainly better than most civvy shooters and AK wielding muslims......nothing to sneeze at in the overall scheme of things.


I'm sure you're good, but don't stomp a civvy and fellow shooter just because you are so good, when in reality he seems to be doing pretty damn decent.

Quoted: If you would, please explain for me: c) How would the Chinese Army (using obsolete equipment) defeat a technologically superior opponent?  Specifically, how does a T-72 defeat an M-1 Abrams?   d) What has been the extent of the training of the Chinese army in the art of maneuver warfare?  Please highlight this against any past Chinese military successes in say....oh, the last 30 years. Thank you.

How would the American Army (using shitbox equipment) defeat a technologically superior opponent?  Specifically, how did the Sherman defeat the Panzer?  numbers!!!

Same goes for d), US vs Germany in WWII, but the Allies won.

Of course I agree its tinfoil munching, but neat to think about.  What we're forgetting is America's air supremecy.  Not superiority, but out and out dominance.  Thier million man march and tank columns would be easy pickings for streams of heavy bombers not seen since WII.  If all else fails, we can send a nuke from Montana or the Dakotas down to New Mexico or Arizona desert right after they cross the border.



South Dakota's China Defense System

LoL they would Hit kali first cuz were the most unarmed. Paul , troy or SMGlee better lend me  a lower cuz i dont think my Fab-10 can hack it!lol

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But when it comes, those on this site will be safe and ready. Nobody wants to terrorize the guy who can hit you out to 400 yards with a rifle. 400?!?!  400??!?!? son, I won't even SHOOT at you if your under 400! That was a rather inane comment. While the best shooters (military snipers AND civilian match shooters) score X's at 1000 with 7.62mm system regularly, hit probability for an average 11B with an M16A2 and iron sights beyond 300 yards is pretty low.  A civilian who can make consistent hits at 400 yards is at least as good as an 11B and certainly better than most civvy shooters and AK wielding muslims......nothing to sneeze at in the overall scheme of things. I'm sure you're good, but don't stomp a civvy and fellow shooter just because you are so good, when in reality he seems to be doing pretty damn decent.

1) I AM an 11B

2) I am a sniper.

3) I DID NOT  get this skill in 11B school

4) I was just goofing on blackjack, anyhow

Conventional war is pretty unlikely.  The Chinese economy is tied to us pretty well.  Actually, Mexico is as well.  The economic success we had through the late 90's and until now, along with the massive influx of immigrants, is all tied to NAFTA.  

An economic takeover is the real threat there.

As far as hostilities, the Muslims top the list, but that's asymmetrical warfare.
Next comes a possible civil war......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But when it comes, those on this site will be safe and ready. Nobody wants to terrorize the guy who can hit you out to 400 yards with a rifle. 400?!?!  400??!?!? son, I won't even SHOOT at you if your under 400! That was a rather inane comment. While the best shooters (military snipers AND civilian match shooters) score X's at 1000 with 7.62mm system regularly, hit probability for an average 11B with an M16A2 and iron sights beyond 300 yards is pretty low.  A civilian who can make consistent hits at 400 yards is at least as good as an 11B and certainly better than most civvy shooters and AK wielding muslims......nothing to sneeze at in the overall scheme of things. I'm sure you're good, but don't stomp a civvy and fellow shooter just because you are so good, when in reality he seems to be doing pretty damn decent. 1) I AM an 11B 2) I am a sniper. 3) I DID NOT  get this skill in 11B school

I know.....

4) I was just goofing on blackjack, anyhow

Didn't know.......

Well the Colorado isn't going to stop anybody trying to cross it from around Yuma south.  The irrigation ditches kill more people than it does.

The Arizona/Sonora and Colorado Deserts are pretty substantial barriers to getting into CA, and then you got some pretty substantial mountains between the deserts and the coastal areas.  In other words a land invsion into CA is only feasible to people who look at maps and not the real terrain.  Unless you think you can hide your preps on Baja which by the way is pretty damn inhospitable too.

Armchair commandos again.

Oh and my "bona fides" include about 12 years Ops and Plans billets in Military Sealift Command Area and Sub-Area Command Navy Reseerve Units.  And 11months overseas in ODS as an MSC Crisis Action Tema Leader and Staff Duty officer so I am kinda familiar with what it takes to move stuff and how much stuff is involved.  

I suggest that before you pipe dream much further on major land warfare issues that you read "Moving Mountains"  by Gen Pagonis, published by the Harvard Business School.  Helps put a lot of things in perspective.  Also shows why Assymetrical Warfare is so attractive and why the concept of any kind of campaign across the deserts (southwestern  US and northwestern Mexico)  is laughable.

Few roads, fewer railroads, little water, minimal forageable crops.  hmmm

Boeing 747 assume 400 pax capability usual, double that by really stacking them in 800 pax.  Thats 1250 flights for a million man force.  Just troops, no ammo, no food, no trucks, trains, gas, etc etc etc.  Even magic 1000 troop planes would need 1000 flights just for troops

Quoted: Quoted: But when it comes, those on this site will be safe and ready. Nobody wants to terrorize the guy who can hit you out to 400 yards with a rifle. 400?!?!  400??!?!? son, I won't even SHOOT at you if your under 400!

I can make hits at 1000! Pick me, pick me!



Interesting question. The AZtlan gig has some possibilites, as the US will be mostly Hispanic soon, I think within my lifetime. I have yet to meet signifigant numbers of Hispanics who don't telepath their alligence to their Mexican flag, and that number is growing very fast.

I think a more realistic possibllity is some form of "war" resulting from some damage to our infrastructure. Something along the lines of a terror plot against power plants which if timed correctly, could literally bring this country to it's knees. The sheeple comprising this country can't live without power, and the natives will get restless, which may require military intervention.

Summary: If the Mexicans don't get us, we will.

Quoted: I don't see a conventional war, that is all but impossible, but a terror war is on the horizon and it will hit us like it did with Israelis.

Doesn't apply, Israel is subject to a terror war due to the fact that are occupying what is essentially a neighboring country. We are not. Let them send their boats against us! Hah.

You mean again right Steyr?

www.alaskool.org/projects/ak_military/warmaps.html



Or we don't count because we where only a terratory at the time?

No Red Dawn type scenarios but remember the LA riots?
No I am not some neo freak but just giving an example of the some types of uprisings that may happen regardless of race, religion and ect.
I really do feel that terrorist activity will become a huge problem if some pacifist President is elected and this crap is not taken care of now.
It really amazes me how soon so many forget 9-11. Do you think they picked 911 as the date on purpose. I do.
Semper Fi.

The wetbacks in Texas will eventually rise up and declare independence from the United States… and the Mexican Army will come to their aid……
…oh shit, they are doing that already…shooting at US Border Patrols and stuff. .

Andy

6 million muslims in the us, and growing, i see that as a potential serious problem, and the chineese comingnup from tha panama area could also be a potential threat


sooner or later someone will get froggy and jump, hopefully it happens when we have a good republican leadership, and well armed civilians, heck, the military could just let the civilians handle it right now, but after the general population is disarmed, well, who knows

We're already being invaded my illegals. And if you shoot them, the feds get all bitchy and moany and toss you in jail.

I just wanna know where the Hell the Chinese and their Mexican allies are going to HIDE those million troops and their gear (prepositioned or not) like tanks, troop carriers, BMPs etc. Hell, Mexico just don't have enough hotels for all of 'em!

Of course, Kerry would probably give them aid money and assistance to build the facilities if he gets in!

Good God, more ignorance.

Quoted: This is how it will happen: Another "terroist" attack. The Bush Admin will demand more power and more loss of our liberties.  Bush will continue praising his Patriot Act (II).  The majority of the populas will willing hand over more freedom for supposed security.  Those that disent are categorized as liberals or aiding Alqueda.  Bush will counter those disenting that if we don't push this legislation thru more "terroist" attacks will occur.  Funny, I wonder who keeps perpetrating these attacks?! Meanwhile, the majority will never actually READ what the Patriot Act says--like:

Apparently, neither have you!  

“any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”) War PROTESTERS will be jail as terroists. SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.

Show me where it says any of that:

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

Can't find it, huh?    

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

Lies.  Where does this Section on Banking mention any of that?:

SEC. 312. SPECIAL DUE DILIGENCE FOR CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS AND PRIVATE BANKING ACCOUNTS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(i) DUE DILIGENCE FOR UNITED STATES PRIVATE BANKING AND CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNTS INVOLVING FOREIGN PERSONS-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Each financial institution that establishes, maintains, administers, or manages a private banking account or a correspondent account in the United States for a non-United States person, including a foreign individual visiting the United States, or a representative of a non-United States person shall establish appropriate, specific, and, where necessary, enhanced, due diligence policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report instances of money laundering through those accounts.
`(2) ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subparagraph (B) shall apply if a correspondent account is requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a foreign bank operating--
`(i) under an offshore banking license; or
`(ii) under a banking license issued by a foreign country that has been designated--
`(I) as noncooperative with international anti-money laundering principles or procedures by an intergovernmental group or organization of which the United States is a member, with which designation the United States representative to the group or organization concurs; or
`(II) by the Secretary of the Treasury as warranting special measures due to money laundering concerns.
`(B) POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND CONTROLS- The enhanced due diligence policies, procedures, and controls required under paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, ensure that the financial institution in the United States takes reasonable steps--
`(i) to ascertain for any such foreign bank, the shares of which are not publicly traded, the identity of each of the owners of the foreign bank, and the nature and extent of the ownership interest of each such owner;
`(ii) to conduct enhanced scrutiny of such account to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions under subsection (g); and
`(iii) to ascertain whether such foreign bank provides correspondent accounts to other foreign banks and, if so, the identity of those foreign banks and related due diligence information, as appropriate under paragraph (1).
`(3) MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE BANKING ACCOUNTS- If a private banking account is requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a non-United States person, then the due diligence policies, procedures, and controls required under paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, ensure that the financial institution takes reasonable steps--
`(A) to ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners of, and the source of funds deposited into, such account as needed to guard against money laundering and report any suspicious transactions under subsection (g); and
`(B) to conduct enhanced scrutiny of any such account that is requested or maintained by, or on behalf of, a senior foreign political figure, or any immediate family member or close associate of a senior foreign political figure that is reasonably designed to detect and report transactions that may involve the proceeds of foreign corruption.
`(4) DEFINITION- For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply:
`(A) OFFSHORE BANKING LICENSE- The term `offshore banking license' means a license to conduct banking activities which, as a condition of the license, prohibits the licensed entity from conducting banking activities with the citizens of, or with the local currency of, the country which issued the license.'.
`(B) PRIVATE BANKING ACCOUNT- The term `private banking account' means an account (or any combination of accounts) that--
`(i) requires a minimum aggregate deposits of funds or other assets of not less than $1,000,000;
`(ii) is established on behalf of 1 or more individuals who have a direct or beneficial ownership interest in the account; and
`(iii) is assigned to, or is administered or managed by, in whole or in part, an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution acting as a liaison between the financial institution and the direct or beneficial owner of the account.'.
(b) REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE-

(1) REGULATORY AUTHORITY- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the appropriate Federal functional regulators (as defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) of the affected financial institutions, shall further delineate, by regulation, the due diligence policies, procedures, and controls required under section 5318(i)(1) of title 31, United States Code, as added by this section.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Section 5318(i) of title 31, United States Code, as added by this section, shall take effect 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, whether or not final regulations are issued under paragraph (1), and the failure to issue such regulations shall in no way affect the enforceability of this section or the amendments made by this section. Section 5318(i) of title 31, United States Code, as added by this section, shall apply with respect to accounts covered by that section 5318(i), that are opened before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Oh yeah? Where does it say all of that?:

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting `, block during the pendency of an investigation' after `investigate'; and
(ii) by striking `interest;' and inserting `interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and';
(C) by striking `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States`; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
`(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.'.

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.

 Lies, nothing but lies. There is nothing in SEC205 that says that:

SEC. 205. EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSLATORS BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
(a) AUTHORITY- The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to expedite the employment of personnel as translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations without regard to applicable Federal personnel requirements and limitations.

(b) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS- The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall establish such security requirements as are necessary for the personnel employed as translators under subsection (a).

(c) REPORT- The Attorney General shall report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on--

(1) the number of translators employed by the FBI and other components of the Department of Justice;
(2) any legal or practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis; and
(3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

THERE IS NO SECTION 410 OF THE PATRIOT ACT!

Let this be an example to those of you who so quickly quote from other people's "descriptions" of the Patriot Act.
You are being lied to.
READ IT YOUR SELF.

Quoted: I just wanna know where the Hell the Chinese and their Mexican allies are going to HIDE those million troops and their gear (prepositioned or not) like tanks, troop carriers, BMPs etc. Hell, Mexico just don't have enough hotels for all of 'em! Of course, Kerry would probably give them aid money and assistance to build the facilities if he gets in!

Simple, really.  If Kerry or Hillary are elected (or even both!) do you think they would continue surveillance of Mexico?  If the UN asked them to stop?

It is not hard to imagine a liberal or other left-wing president pulling back intelligence gathering on our "allies".  I wonder, really, how much time and energy we really spend looking at Mexico.
It's a big place, easy to hide things if no one is really looking.  Why do y'all assume that  it would be easy to see this happening, if no one expects it?  I mean, even to consider it is a paranoid fantasy, so why bother wasting resources to keep an eye on things, right?

So anyway, why is it paranoid to consider a nation a possible threat that has fought us before, or that two such countries might get together and hit us?

Why is it ridiculous and stupid to think that China might just have something we don't know about, like new tanks?  We have very, very few intelligence assets in China; it is a hard thing to do; harder than getting assets into a Muslim area.

Some other points mentioned:

We would not ever nuke a Chinese (or anyone else) army on American soil.  Never happen.

The Navy and Air Force would not stop any prepositioning before a beginning of hostilities; that's just not going to happen.

The Navy and Air Force in the SouthWest USA is very vulnerable to decapitation strikes.  A couple nukes, maybe even small actical nuke missles launching out of a Cosco ship would cut the head right off of our ability to oppose just such an attack.  The Air Force bases are open; it would be fairly easy for a determined foe to damage response ability.  Especially with everyone thinking that military attacks on the CONUS are a paranoid fantasy, there is no reason to defend if it's just nutjobs that would even consider it, right?

The Chinese are not at all squeamish about taking losses to win.  Remember Korea?

Anyway, it is not impossible.  Unlikely, sure; but most wars are.

For Foreign Invasion, as far as I know, China is the only nation with anywhere near the resources to consider an invasion. Lots of scenarios have already been knocked back and forth, but I think the bottom line is resources and will. Whoever has the most resources and will will win eventually. China has the resources. They may not have a decent Navy and invasion fleet now, but they do have a big, growing economy. What would they have in 20 years if they really wanted it?

Though I think it's technically possible, I doubt they would find the reason for it. We already have so much trade with China. What do they stand to gain by throwing that away to invade a country several thousand miles away? If they were going to invade anyone, why not Russia (a la The Bear and the Dragon)? They're right on the border, they have little trade with China, and they don't have much of a military.

Now Civil War, that's a whole different subject. I think it's entirely possible, and if it happens, it would be like nothing we have ever seen. How can you predict what would happen? What rebel organizations will form, and who in them will sell out? Who in the military and police will believe in Freedom, and what will they do about it? How far is the President willing to go to maintain his power? What will the majority of people do if the feds seriously crack down on rights and civil liberties? It's entirely possible that we'll end up with something much worse then what we started with.

Hey Ohio, you want to tell us how much time you have spent

1.  In any southwest deserts?

2.  Trying to get from Yuma to San Diego or San Bernardino without using an Interstate?

3.  In any kind of military logistics on a large scale?

4.  In any kind of work with pre-positioned stockpiles and gained any appreciation of how much storage you need for for say a brigade size force?

5.  In any kind of military intelligence capability that would give you any clue on how easy it is to move or hide pre-po stocks

6.  In any kind of civilian experience that would give  you a clue on how well the Mexican rail and highway system can support moving a major effort assuming that you were somehow able to hide all the pre-po  stocks,  supplies that came along with the troops, and the troops athemselves?

7.  In any kind of anything that makes you think that Baja California could be any kind of a staging area?  (Hint name any major seaport on Baja that can  handle containers or armor, any highway system out of the port, any airport that can handle widebodies airlifting troops)

And then tell us again why you think a land invasion from Mexico is even possible.  Tell us the route such an invasion would take, and how the moving columns couldn't be interdicted in any of several chokepoints.

Jeez give it a rest, it ain't possible except under the screwiest ignore reality scenario you can propose.

This is on the only rail line into Baja California and it is in  California.  It's wood and very old.  I kinda think it might disappear if it was attempted to be used by an invader.