It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: China to Raise Defense Budget, Eyes Taiwan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
China is set to boost its defense spending by more than 12 percent. This comes on the heel of the proposed introduction of an anti secession law being proposed by the Communist government. In related news, a massive security force numbering in the tens of thousands are prepared to crush any sign of protest.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will boost its military budget this year by more than 12 percent, a parliament spokesman said on Friday, as delegates began gathering in Beijing to debate an anti-secession bill aimed at arch foe Taiwan.

Security forces took up position in the capital by the tens of thousands, ready to crush any display of dissent during the annual session of parliament, or National People's Congress, that opens on Saturday.

Parliament spokesman Jiang Enzhu defended the anti-secession bill, which codifies China's policy toward Taiwan and could provide a legal basis to attack the island, saying it was not a preparation for war.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Okay how will you spin this? Thousands of security forces have been deployed to crush any protests? China is ratcheting up the saber rattling and claims its being misunderstood? The implications of its law are pretty clear and coupled with the increase in defense spending is all the more worrisome. Its interesting to see that they have also banned cars and aircraft from the vicinity as well. Seems these Communist leaders of the people have thier security concerns as well.




posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Banning cars is probably a sane idea, considering the amount of explosives third parties can put in their to stir up trouble, just look at Lebanon.

Anyways, this is good news for Raytheon, Taiwan will no doubt do some extra spending to match the chinese effort...

Wonder how the Chinese plan to spend it, on surface vessels, missiles or subs, I would think that subs are the most agressive option.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
The ofical responce to the question is on wages
I doubt highly that that is the case.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
The security buildup is little different to what we saw at the RNC, DNC and at Bush's inauguration : the use of state police forces to protect greedy politicians that are no better than criminals and corporate lackeys in the name of national security. The funny thing is China's Free Speech Zones are on Taiwan!


The only reason China is ratcheting up the sabre rattling is because the US and Japan are sabre rattling along with Taiwan after decades of a one china policy, very dangerous and foolish politics.

The US can't ensure Taiwan's security forever, the odds are against them. Taiwan is an internal matter and is considered by the beijing government their issue only nobody elses.

This is actually a small increase compared with previous years, for over a decade the Chinese defence budget has usually always increased by double digits. This is nothing new. As for the defence department using it to increase wages, I wouldn't be surprised if they do increase them but not all the increase will be going to that.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
This is exactly why we need t end all social programs (the single biggest percentage of Government spending) and funnel that money into the Military Budget. I just dont understand why we are paying for the education and healthcare of llegal immigrants and the terminally lazy, when there are serious threats like China out there.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
That's a real beaut Mwm1311! in fact it's worthy of being in my signature



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
This is exactly why we need t end all social programs


No, that's not hateful at all. In fact, I find that refreshingly compassionate.

Ooh, the righteous anger and indignation of the pious faithful, hands in the forms of cups, awaiting the heavens to rain down nuggets of truth and miracles of mirth. Somehow, I don't think Jesus would end all social programs. I must have missed the part in the New Testement where Jesus spoke to the masses, before killing fish with his SAM missile.

I'm certainly not going to call your views shallow or hypocritical, because that would be wallowing down at your level. However, I would hope for your sake, that you do something about your apparent anger problems, before they end up destroying you.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Jesus insructed us to give, not to force others to give brimstone.
He didnt tell the young prince to force his subjects to give to the poor he told him to give his own wealth to the poor.
Thats the difference brimstone and there is nothing hypocritical about it.
I give a great deal of money to charity becuase I can afford to and becuase I want to. What I object to is the government forcing me to give money to social programs, forcing me to pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants. Jesus told me I should give to the poor, but he didnt say "and if you choose not to I'm gonna force you to give your money to them anyway"
The fact is if the US government did end all social assistance programs everyone rich or poor would be better off, taxes would be lower and those who are disadvantaged would get more help than they get now, instead of comming from the government it would come from churches, mosques, synsgogues, community groups and charities. People would choose to give, if they were given a choice.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Jesus insructed us to give, not to force others to give brimstone.
He didnt tell the young prince to force his subjects to give to the poor he told him to give his own wealth to the poor.
Thats the difference brimstone and there is nothing hypocritical about it.
I give a great deal of money to charity becuase I can afford to and becuase I want to. What I object to is the government forcing me to give money to social programs, forcing me to pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants. Jesus told me I should give to the poor, but he didnt say "and if you choose not to I'm gonna force you to give your money to them anyway"
The fact is if the US government did end all social assistance programs everyone rich or poor would be better off, taxes would be lower and those who are disadvantaged would get more help than they get now, instead of comming from the government it would come from churches, mosques, synsgogues, community groups and charities. People would choose to give, if they were given a choice.


So Jesus said "give to your fellow man, unless they illegal immigrants!".

Gotcha



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
No jesus said give to your fellow man not take from your fellow man to give to others, not force your fellow man to give whether he wants to or not, he exhorted us to choose to give, not to force others or to be forced to give.
Is that really so hard to understand, it isn't a question of whther or nt we should give it a question of whether or not we are allowed to make that choice for ourselves as opposed to someone else making that choice for us.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
We're talking about the Chinese and somehow it turns into a discussion on religion.....

Well anyways, I would definitely say NOT end ALL social programs, as good social programs can be of real benefit to people who needthem. It is the increibly lazy folk and the illegal immigrant folk that they need to stop giving our tax dollars to!



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
No jesus said give to your fellow man not take from your fellow man to give to others, not force your fellow man to give whether he wants to or not, he exhorted us to choose to give, not to force others or to be forced to give.
Is that really so hard to understand, it isn't a question of whther or nt we should give it a question of whether or not we are allowed to make that choice for ourselves as opposed to someone else making that choice for us.


No, its not that i don't understand what you are saying.

It's just that i'm finding it difficult to understand the difference,

For example, if you were to follow Jesus' example and then you would obviousely CHOOSE to give to your fellow man. Your tax dollars are taken from you and given to "your fellow man", something you would have chosen to do in the first place.

Isn't the difference merely in semantics?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
OK, going back on topic.

The US currently spends half the world's military budget.

nuff said.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
No its not, I firmly believe that unless we have the freedom to choose evil we can not choose good, unless we have the freedom not to give we haven't given.
Let me put it another way, I feel theocracies are in direct violation of what god wants, now I know this sounds radical but bear with me.
Take for exapmle a Muslim theocracy in which the sale of lquor is banned because of islams vew of alcohol. Now has a muslim who lives in that theocracy really chosen to follow the lwas of Islam, or did someone else choose for him?
If someone else chooses for you then you can not take credit for the good nor the blame for the bad that results from your choice, you can not say you follow gods laws because you have no choice but to do so.
Unless you make the choice of you own free will to do what he wants, you aren't.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
You know, for a conservative, your view on religion is actually quite liberal.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Thats because conservatives are the true liberals.

Think about it, we believe in the individual's abiility to choose right over wrong, Fight for the individuals abillity to make that choice for themselves, oppose any governemnt program which differentiates between Americans on any bass whether race, religon, or sex, regardless of whether it be a form of beneficial or non-beneficial differentiantion, believ in the average "dumbed down" citizens abillity to choose how to spend ther money rather than believing the government is better equipped to choose for them, wish to protect the basic rights of all ctizens not just those who are already born, and entrust the citzenry enough to believe they can handle firearms responsibly without our nterventon.
So how liberal are liberals when you really think about it.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
arr... But that's all well and good, but hardly a reflection of the "conservatives" truly in power in the Republican party.

It is ironic that President Lincoln's party has moved from a moderate-conservative platform to an extreme right-wing platform that forgoes the first rule of conservatism, which is fiscal responsibility.

It is as if the southern state democrats of the civil war transplanted itself into Republican ranks.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Actually Bush is very fisaclly conservative n the things the nation can afford to be fscally conservative about. Thats why he's cutting funding to many of the government social progarams. Unfortunately saving money at the cost of the military is not conservative. It similar to a person trying to save money on shoes by cutting off his feet, yeah you will save some in the short term but in the long run you will lose a lot more.
A strong militry is worth spending money on as it guarantees the governments abillity to do its job.
There is a difference between saving money by cuttng waste and saving money by cutting off your own legs.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Ok, he doesn't have to cut the military budget.

However, before cutting social security, which is essential to all Americans, he might've considered rolling back tax cuts, which are beneficial to a few rich Americans.

It's all about priorities, his is misplaced. The Republican party used to be a party of small business entrepreniers, now it is a party of big corporations.

-----

Anyway, i must continue this at a later time, it has being interesting.
Hehe, we are way off topic.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Heres the thing rapier he cut taxes across the board. Americans do not need social security, you do not need social security, that is a lie which has been used to enslave us for 70 years. You, I, and every other American is perfectly capable of funding our own retirement if the government would just let us keep our own money in the first place.
Why would you need SS if the government wasn't taking between 15-45% of what you earn every week?
Between Income tax, SS witholding etc. the government is taking money out of your pocket and tellng you that they have to be in charge of your retirement becuase you cant be trusted to manage your own money?!?
How do you expect the republican party to protect small businesses without protecting corporatons at the same time?
Thats like saying the government can protect all citizens by reducing the protectons each indvidual ctzen recieves.
If the one is not protected the many will never be safe.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join