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: Rice Asks Europe Not To Arm China

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

In another instance you say that China has in the past had border conflicts, therefore China is an aggressive nation. This is putting aside that stupid notion of China being a offensive nation. China is not occupying any territory that it has not controlled in it's imperial dynasty. All the border conflicts involved China retreating back unilaterally back inside it's own border.


China isn't occupying anything that isn't theres because they couldn't. They have crossed over their borders and tried to take land, though. In this wasn't half a century ago by a completely different government, like in Japan. It was the current communist party all the time. Nothing has changed about this government.


And no, Germany is nothing like Japan. Read up on your history, especially the bit about "War Reparations" and "Admitting guilt for the war". Japan still believes that it committed no atrocities in WW2.


Japan has to go apologizing before it can be trusted again? That does not make sense. The Japanese who did those things were already dealt with half a century ago. The current Japanese have shown no aggression towards anyone.


I'll let someone else debunk the rest of your diatribe since it's so full of errors it's too much for one man. You're wrong though, on this issue, like usual. Japan is changing the entire makeup of their armed forces to be better equipped to fight an offensive war. Or do you only comprehend news that agrees with your position? READ these, don't just tell me my links are irrelevant, like usual.


Most of the changes in their military (which have been minor) have been the result of North Korea threatening to fire missiles at them (while Japan gives them huge amounts of aid), and Chinese subs invading their waters, and trying to claim Japanese land.

They still have no offensive capability. They have done nothing to gain offensive capability.


No in fact I remember seeing the US government scape-goating a Dutch businessman for selling chemical weapons to the Iraqis. Around the same time their government was doing the exact same thing. Maybe they were annoyed that they were being undercut. Whats your point here? A Dutch man is being brought to justice by a Dutch court? How does that prove that Americans didnt sell weapons to Saddam Hussein after Halabja?


He wasn't trying to prove America didn't sell weapons to Saddam ,just that Europe was doing the same damn thing. The Iraqis had mostly Russian, and French weapons. Their nuclear reactor was French. Most of their chemical weapons were from Russia.


Why focus on the arming of China when you're simulataneously cramming Taiwan and South Korea full of sophisticated radar and weapons? Why complain about selling weapons to a future enemy when America has directly funded Iraq, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the past? Is this a change of heart on the Americans side? Or is it merely because China is a vast market and the Americans are put out by the fact that China wants those filthy French weapons and not good ol' American ones?


South Korea has yet to show any aggression towards North Korea. Their population doesn't really give a damn about the North as long as they can continue to live as they wish. Taiwan is no threat to China. The weapons we've sold have been more or less for defensive purposes. They have just enough to defend their island.

We sold to Iraq like everyone else did. We armed Afghanis to fight the Soviets, not the Taliban. Those that would become part of the Taliban were only part of those fighting against the Soviets. IF you reviewed history, you might have heard about the civil war that followed after the Soviets pulled out. Al Qeada didn't exist at the time.


Ban landmines? World says yes, Cuba and the USA say no!
Non-signatories to the UN Landmine Ban


The world says yes, they just keep on using them, like the Soviets in Afghanistan.


Russia offers complete nuclear dissarmament in 1986 at Reykjavik summit thus ending the Cold War. Regan says no!
Russian Chronicle of Events 1986


No nukes means the Cold War is over? I guess those thousands of American and Russian troops stationed in Germany were just going to vanish, right?


He must realize he is SERIOUSLY reaching when he says losing American citizens overseas, thousands of them, would be insignifigant. You are truly searching for an argument here man, really we should be discussing the question at hand, China and Taiwan, because it is fairly stupid to even entertain a war between a coalition of European powers and the United States. There wolud obviously be no winners in such a scenario.


I never said there would be any war, or America would do anything I'm suggesting. It's not out of lack of capability, though. Anyone who thinks America is unable is a fool who hasn't actually taken time to look at the matter. There is no defense from America's bombers. Europe can not transport troops around their own continent as well as America can the world. They do not have the economic power America does.




posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
China isn't occupying anything that isn't theres because they couldn't.

So the crux of your argument is what exactly?


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
He wasn't trying to prove America didn't sell weapons to Saddam ,just that Europe was doing the same damn thing.

I admit he was fashionably vague with his jibe but I took it to mean that he was giving evidence that components used in the Halabja gas attack were Dutch in origin. That however didnt even slightly pertain to the quote of mine he included which was about the Americans continued funding and arms selling to Saddam even after Halabja. He didnt disprove that Americans kept supplying arms to a known genocidal maniac.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
South Korea has yet to show any aggression towards North Korea.
Grab a history book my friend, they are still in a state of War. There cannot be a war if only one side shows aggression. That would be called a slaughter.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Taiwan is no threat to China.

If Hawaii suddenly decided to breakaway from the United States and setup a communist government. Which subsequently garnered international support and financial/military aid from China - Would the United States class Hawaii as a threat?


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Al Qeada didn't exist at the time.

Osama Bin Laden was taught directly by the CIA in guerilla warfare and tactics. Just because the US government didnt know they would turn on them it still doesnt change the fact that the US has put weapons into the hands of those they end up fighting.



Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The world says yes, they just keep on using them, like the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Erm no they dont actually. They are not used by anyone but Cuba and the United States any more. Soviets? This ban came into effect in the mid 90's. Soviets in Afghanistan can be forgiven their ignorance of a ban that came into effect atleast a decade into the future.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
No nukes means the Cold War is over? I guess those thousands of American and Russian troops stationed in Germany were just going to vanish, right.

I had to re-read over that sentence a few times to actually believe you wrote it. Could you imagine what the world might of been like with no American or Russian nukes in theatre??? The Cold War would of been over, there would of been no threats on both sides and the good will garnered from these bi-lateral moves would of progressed into full blown peace.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I never said there would be any war, or America would do anything I'm suggesting. It's not out of lack of capability, though. Anyone who thinks America is unable is a fool who hasn't actually taken time to look at the matter. There is no defense from America's bombers. Europe can not transport troops around their own continent as well as America can the world. They do not have the economic power America does.

So your proving the point that America is a bully? The threat of violence should silence its critics? If it wanted to America could destroy the planet? Well now these are things that every modern civilisation should strive to attain



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

I never said there would be any war, or America would do anything I'm suggesting. It's not out of lack of capability, though. Anyone who thinks America is unable is a fool who hasn't actually taken time to look at the matter. There is no defense from America's bombers. Europe can not transport troops around their own continent as well as America can the world. They do not have the economic power America does.


There is no defense from American bombers!!!! And you accuse ME of ignorance!!!!!!Europe cannot transport troops?? They have the best rail system in the world, you could get from Paris to Rome in a couple hours, you can get anywhere in Europe in a couple hours. That would be much better than the US's Hercules transports which are PROP planes and would be blown out of the sky. Yeah they don't have the economic power, that is why G-8 is comprised of almost all european countries and why the Euro is stronger than the American dollar. Get some facts before you flap your gums man, you are starting to embarrass yourself.


georgiapeace.org...

Check out this article on the G8 because it is obvious you have no idea what it is.
[edit on 21-3-2005 by jawapunk]

[edit on 21-3-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

So the crux of your argument is what exactly?


An aggressive nation that has tried to steal land and threatens war to Taiwan shouldn't be armed more.


I admit he was fashionably vague with his jibe but I took it to mean that he was giving evidence that components used in the Halabja gas attack were Dutch in origin. That however didnt even slightly pertain to the quote of mine he included which was about the Americans continued funding and arms selling to Saddam even after Halabja. He didnt disprove that Americans kept supplying arms to a known genocidal maniac.


We never gave weapons to Saddam, anyway. He bought them Europe and Russia. We gave him funding and intelligence.


Grab a history book my friend, they are still in a state of War. There cannot be a war if only one side shows aggression. That would be called a slaughter.


First, there can very well be a war where only one side shows aggression. That side is the one who invades unprovoked. Second, an armistice is defined as as the effective end of a war. You don't need a peace treaty for a war to be over.


If Hawaii suddenly decided to breakaway from the United States and setup a communist government. Which subsequently garnered international support and financial/military aid from China - Would the United States class Hawaii as a threat?


That isn't how it happened. There was a civil war. The communists could not finish off their enemy, who was in Taiwan. The communists were the rebels, anyway.

And America would not classify Hawaii as a threat. We'd treat them like what they are, a disobediant nuissance.


Osama Bin Laden was taught directly by the CIA in guerilla warfare and tactics. Just because the US government didnt know they would turn on them it still doesnt change the fact that the US has put weapons into the hands of those they end up fighting.


We never supported the Taliban or Osama. Trying to say we did is a lie. And nothing we taught Osama was necessary for him to start Al Qeada. He didn't need CIA training to have someone fly planes into buildings. The Palestinians never needed CIA training to bomb and kill Israelis.


Erm no they dont actually. They are not used by anyone but Cuba and the United States any more. Soviets? This ban came into effect in the mid 90's. Soviets in Afghanistan can be forgiven their ignorance of a ban that came into effect atleast a decade into the future.


Has Russia been in a war since? Has any European power been in any war of their own? The answers are no. We'll see how long they pay attention to treaties when they are in a real war where thousands of their men are dying.


I had to re-read over that sentence a few times to actually believe you wrote it. Could you imagine what the world might of been like with no American or Russian nukes in theatre??? The Cold War would of been over, there would of been no threats on both sides and the good will garnered from these bi-lateral moves would of progressed into full blown peace.


Neither side ever would have dissarmed. Anyone who believes they would is naive. The Cold War wasn't about nukes, either. Getting rid of nukes wouldn't have dealt with the thousands of troops both nations had prepared to destroy each other on the opposite sides of the Berlin wall.


So your proving the point that America is a bully? The threat of violence should silence its critics? If it wanted to America could destroy the planet? Well now these are things that every modern civilisation should strive to attain


You can live in your fantasy world all you want. America is the world's power. We have absolutely no logical reason to treat Europe as our equal, and we do so only out of respect and kindness. Neither of which has been repaid by the majority of Europe.


There is no defense from American bombers!!!! And you accuse ME of ignorance!!!!!!Europe cannot transport troops?? They have the best rail system in the world, you could get from Paris to Rome in a couple hours, you can get anywhere in Europe in a couple hours. That would be much better than the US's Hercules transports which are PROP planes and would be blown out of the sky. Yeah they don't have the economic power, that is why G-8 is comprised of almost all european countries and why the Euro is stronger than the American dollar. Get some facts before you flap your gums man, you are starting to embarrass yourself.


Europe has no counter to America's stealth planes. Europe's transport systems would be destroyed at the start of any war. They have mostly conscript armies not suited to be deployed outside of their own nation. They don't have the actual vehicles to move the troops around.

No Hercules would be shot down, simply because all air defenses Europe has would be annihalated with cruise missiles and stealth bombers.

As for the economy, your arguments are laughable. They have a few nations in the G-8, but that doesn't mean their economic power is anywhere near America's. All of the EU together has a GDP slightly larger than America's, while having a far lower GDP per capita. The biggeste economic powers in Europe have shrinking, or barely growing economies with massive unemployment. They have more debt than America. The strong Euro is actually hurting their economy at this time, not helping it. Germany's economy, and many others rely heavily on exports.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Poosible update to the situation?
US chill gives Europe cold feet on China arms sales


seekerof



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
China isn't occupying anything that isn't theres because they couldn't. They have crossed over their borders and tried to take land, though. In this wasn't half a century ago by a completely different government, like in Japan. It was the current communist party all the time. Nothing has changed about this government. ...

An aggressive nation that has tried to steal land and threatens war to Taiwan shouldn't be armed more.



Your argument is becoming more and more desperate, to say the least. It now basically comes down to,

One border conflict in 50 years that the Chinese uninaterally withdrew when winning to justify the stupid notion of China being an aggressive nation.

You know nothing of the history of China, the history of China's border conflicts, the history of the Chinese people, or the history of China's civil war.

Talking to you is like playing piano to a double-bricked wall.


from Mauddib

If what you are looking for is evidence of what i said about China being one of the major exporters of illegal weapons, here are a couple links.



So China helping Pakistan with the Nuke is bad even though it balanced out the regional balance with India. Do you even think that there would be a Pakistan left if China didn't help them to get the nuke?

And when the US exports weapons, it's legal, right?

U.S to sell F-16's to Pakistan and India

U.S to sell Patriots to India



What is clear is that there is a growing consensus in Washington that the US should no longer be shy about selling India military equipment as part of a wider defence partnership that is critical for a major new geopolitical relationship, according to a report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

"Supplying arms to New Delhi would be a dramatic change in US policy and certainly the most notable arms sale since the US lifted its nuclear embargo on India in 2001," CSIS, quoted an anonymous US analyst as saying.


So no biggi there even though India also violated the Non-Nuclear treaty.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

One border conflict in 50 years that the Chinese uninaterally withdrew when winning to justify the stupid notion of China being an aggressive nation.


One? I named three. Vietnam, India, and Russia. They invaded Vietnam. They left after being bloodied badly, and having Vietnam actually invade China. In the 60's they attacked India, grabbed land, and never gave it back. They've had numerous clashes with Russia on the border.

Not to mention things like Tibet, their dispute over the Senkaku Islands, and the situation with Taiwan.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

One border conflict in 50 years that the Chinese uninaterally withdrew when winning to justify the stupid notion of China being an aggressive nation.


One? I named three. Vietnam, India, and Russia. They invaded Vietnam. They left after being bloodied badly, and having Vietnam actually invade China. In the 60's they attacked India, grabbed land, and never gave it back. They've had numerous clashes with Russia on the border.

Not to mention things like Tibet, their dispute over the Senkaku Islands, and the situation with Taiwan.


Disturbed, this is last reply i will give to you in this thread. I have better things to do then arguing with human ignorance. I will give responses to your assertions on the Sino-Vietnam border conflict and the Sino-India border conflict.

I have answered Tibet on my original post, go look at the map i gave you.

The Sino-Russian border conflicts, Senkaku and Taiwan are frankly, not even worth my time to sit here and argue with you. Believe what you want to believe.

History of Sino-Vietnam war



While Communist China and North Vietnam had been close during the initial stages of the Vietnam War, after the conflict and the Sino-Soviet Split Vietnam aligned with the Soviet Union. During the conflict in Indochina, initially both the Chinese and the Soviet Union were supplying Vietnam. With the death of Stalin, the situation changed. Mao Zedong despised Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's sucessor, and criticised the Soviet Union's interpretation of Communism. As a result of the conflict, Chinese foreign policy began a shift away from the Soviet Union and towards the United States. North Vietnam began allying with the Soviet Union, which continued to supply North Vietnam's fight against South Vietnam and the United States.




North Vietnam's eventual goal became not just the defeat and conquest of South Vietnam, but rather the creation of a pan-Indochinese nation. China was very concerned about having to fight a two front war against both the Vietnamese and the Soviets. As a result, the Chinese met with Henry Kissinger and later Richard Nixon, moving the nation into the American camp.




In late 1978 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, ending the Khmer Rouge regime. On January 7 Vietnamese-backed Cambodian forces seized Phnom Penh. In response the Chinese decided to launch an punitive assault on Vietnam.




The Chinese managed to advance around thirty kilometres into Vietnam, with fighting mainly occurring in the provinces of Cao Bang, Lao Cai, and Lang Son. On March 6 the Chinese declared the punitive mission over, and began withdrawing their forces.


There was no "land grab". The war was not fought over land. In fact, the US supported Pol Pot and Cambodia.

Pol Pot and Cambodia



Envisaging a perfectly egalitarian agrarianism, the Khmer Rouge favored a direct route to communism, thus bypassing the intermediate stage of socialism. Anti-modern and isolationist, Pol Pot was quite the opponent of Soviet orthodoxy. Because he was anti-Soviet, the United States, Thailand and People's Republic of China considered him preferable to the pro-Vietamese government.


The US and the PRC liked him so much that they both vetoed the allocation of the UN seat to the Vietnamese installed puppet regime.



Pol Pot, an enemy of the Soviet Union, also gained support from Thailand and the US. In particular, the US and the PRC vetoed the allocation of Cambodia's United Nations General Assembly seat to a representative of Heng Samrin's government


Sino-Indian Border Conflict



The border between British India and China had never been marked clearly. For reasons of security, Britain maintained a forward claim in the Himalayas, but administrative borders were further south. The main British claim was the McMahon Line which had been drawn up during the Simla Conference of 1914. However, owing to various disagreements with the British, the Republic of China refused to ratify and recognize any agreements reached at the Conference. As a result, China did not recognize the validity of the McMahon Line border. After the independence of India and the establishment of the PRC in the late 1940s, the issue of the border was not fully resolved.


The border between the two countries was never estabillished.



However, after the PRC established control over Tibet in 1950, the Indian government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru adopted a policy of forward military deployment in the border area. China reacted angrily, disputing India's claims about border areas. For several years up to 1962, India and China both maintained forces in the disputed area. At times, each side accused the other of having moved troops into 'their' side of the border as each side tried to extend its line of actual control. A few skirmishes occurred during this time.

As the frequency of Chinese incursions into the disputed area increased, Indian leaders conferred on November 2, 1961 to formulate a response. In the exercise codenamed Operation ONKAR, India decided to move troops and establish patrol posts as far forward as possible, in some sectors even north of the McMahon line, in an effort to extrude the Chinese presence from all territory claimed by India.




By November 18, the PLA had penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border. Due to either logistical problems (according to Indian accounts) or political reasons (according to Chinese accounts) the PLA did not advance farther and on November 21 declared a unilateral cease-fire. The United States Air Force flew in massed supplies to India in November, 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA withdrew to positions it occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim.


China has never, ever claimed extra territory due to the war.

Now, Disturbed, you have to be one of the most tenacious posters we have in this forum. For that i commend you.

However, i really hope that you would read up and understand history a bit better before posting.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Disturbed, you are retarded.
End of story.
You skim many of the posts that answer your belligerence, you obviously don't bother to read the links, nor any scholarly research into ANYTHING you make comments about. You make no reference to anything that you say, simply stating it as a given, which means it is both opinion, and unscholarly. It seems to me you have very little if any grasp of history or politics within the last century, you were obviously asleep during your history classes or out smoking weed, and you are still trying to maintain a weak and pathetic argument.

Listen to what people are telling you for a change, try reading some books, some journals, some of the links right in front of you at this computer, you will see the error of your ways.

I find it very sad that someone who obviously likes to speak their mind wouldn't bother to become informed upon the subjects they have opinions upon, that in essence is a definition of ignorance.

For you to surmise as to the strengths and weaknesses of the world's strongest militarys, and say the United States could take them all out within days or that they would have no time or ability to react to an American attack is absolutely ridiculous and naive. You overestimate your American forces I THINK, and underestimate the European ones. I would like to see some links for you to show me the errors in my ways. You contend that Europe has neither the resources nor the technology to play with the big boys, militarily, I would like you to PROVE that statement.

We have been all giving you links and evidence which backs some of our arguments, now I think it is time to say PUT UP, OR SHUT UP

[edit on 21-3-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
It is clearly visible, that the only issue the United States has with the EU removing embargoes, is the fact that it will disrupt to scales of power the US has worked so terribly hard to "balance" out... The US likes being the top-dog, if something were to take away even a fraction of power it contains within the metaphorical walls of "the worlds watch dog" - its not going to like it.

Especially considering that what the EU is implying will result in Europe becoming stronger economically - thus giving rise to some economic competition between Europe and the United States. And I suppose more importantly is the fact that China can start to become the super-power the world needs... A rivalry the US could probably do without...



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Yes, like the links that gave before.

The U.S has being selling F-16's and Patriots to whom ever wants it. But EU can't sell to China?



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Its the very fact that the US does what it likes, and prevents others from doing likewise - that they have managed to asertain the power they weild...

They rob from the poor, to give to the rich... Its what Imperialism is all about ladies and gentle-men...



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
You have voted rapier28 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Fantastic post there, I learnt a lot from it thank you


I think most people can see through the US intentions in banning weapons sales to China. Its nothing more than entrenching US power in the Pacific.

If it was about not supplying "aggressive nations" that have fought over land in the last 50 years then we shouldnt see the arming of India and Pakistan as their Kashmir conflict is literally as old as the hills.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
i thought china already had it own arms.1.2 billion people live there.they dont need anyones help .we seem to need theres thow......



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
'You have voted rapier28 for the Way Above Top Secret award'

Good on you mate! that post was great and highlighted information to many who have ignorance on the issues. And also good for showing that American policy is not all good, it's also bad.

you gotta be an aussie


cheers!,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
simply do what you do best: avoid them.


Who's avoiding what now? Still no reply to my post from you except an incredibly witty change to your custom title. "Want a tissue?" nah I'd prefer and decent answer first



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

So China helping Pakistan with the Nuke is bad even though it balanced out the regional balance with India. Do you even think that there would be a Pakistan left if China didn't help them to get the nuke?

And when the US exports weapons, it's legal, right?

U.S to sell F-16's to Pakistan and India

U.S to sell Patriots to India


Let's see the difference between what the US is doing and what China is doing.

Here is an excerpt from your article.


The tentative plans call for the U.S. to sell Pakistan about two dozen of the aircraft, while India could buy as many as 125, the Journal reported, citing U.S. officials and others with knowledge of the matter.

Sales of the fighter jets would be a major policy shift for the United States and a final step toward tacit acceptance of both countries' possession of nuclear weapons, the paper said.


Excerpted from.
msnbc.msn.com...

Now let's see some of the things China has done.


China paid Osama bin Laden several million dollars for access to unexploded American cruise missiles left over from the US attack on his bases three years ago, a senior alleged al-Qaida agent in Europe has claimed.
The alleged agent's account is contained in the transcript of a secretly taped conversation between supporters of Osama bin Laden obtained by the Guardian. His revelation emerged as President Bush yesterday announced that he had won Beijing's support for the war on terrorism. After his first face-to-face meeting with China's President Jiang Zemin in Shanghai, Mr Bush said: "President Jiang and the government stand side by side with the American people as we fight this evil force".
.....................
"Perhaps the Americans are convinced by the bombardment of the sheikh's [Bin Laden's] training centres," Ben Heni is quoted as saying. "For them, it was a victory. But, in fact, it was a defeat because the majority of the missiles didn't even explode."

After a digression, the transcript continues: "With these weapons, he [Bin Laden] has boosted his financial resources. From every part of the world businessmen who hate Americans have come to study American missile strategy.

"In particular, businessmen have come from China. He works a great deal with China. He's got good relations with them.


Excerpted from.
www.guardian.co.uk...

So, China has business relations with Osama Bin Laden... not members of the Bin Laden family who have nothing to do with the crazed Osama, but with Osama Bin Laden himself....

Let's see what else has China done.


For some time the U.S. intelligence community has known that Chinese communist nuclear-missile and arms smuggling has been increasing dramatically. By whatever means, private information from the Clinton administration relating to Chinese nuclear weapons and missile sales to Pakistan has made its way to MSNBC, the Washington Times and the Far Eastern Economic Review.

What we now know:

* U.S. military and intelligence officials now estimate Pakistan's nuclear-strike capability is five times that of India. This represents a reassessment in the order of 500 percent.

* Right now, Communist China secretly is building a second M-class ballistic-missile plant in Pakistan. When this comes online, it will be able to increase Pakistan's nuclear-missile stockpile by an additional 100 percent.
................
Second, we know that Communist China's military companies have provided Pakistan with the complete strategic weapons cycle: fissile materials, weaponization and missile-delivery system. Whatever Pakistan has, it's stamped "Made in China" or, to a lesser extent, "Made in China by way of North Korea." If Pakistan has five times as much offensive nuclear-warfare capability as we thought it had, then Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is five times higher.


Excerpted from.
www.findarticles.com...

So China has also been selling illegally, nuclear weapons to Pakistan...

Let's see if they have done the same to other countries....


The United States believes China is selling weapons of mass destruction to Middle Eastern states to finance the modernization of its military.

U.S. officials said this includes WMD sales to such countries as Egypt, Iran, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Middle East Newsline reported. They said the sales include both technology for the development of biological and chemical weapons as well as components and expertise to develop nuclear weapons from civilian nuclear facilities.

The latest assertion of China's WMD policy came in a Defense Department report released on Friday. The Pentagon released a report to Congress entitled "Military Power of the People's Republic of China."

U.S. officials said China's need for funds to modernize its military could have been a factor in its violations of a pledge in 2000 to end WMD exports to such countries as Iran.


Excerpted from.
216.26.163.62...


China has been involved in helping the arms programs of a number of states officially listed by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, Iraq and North Korea. A Chinese company, Huawei Technologies, helped install fiber-optic communications with military applications in Iraq. The same company, along with a second Chinese firm, was also involved in constructing a telephone switching system in Kabul for the ruling Taliban militia.


Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...

And again, I ask you, where is your proof on your statement that I never provide evidence... i am still waiting.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I do wonder if people can add this up... China has business relations with Osama Bin Laden.... and in 1999 two Chinese Colonels wrote a new book on how China should wage it's war against the US....one of the things mentioned by these two Chinese officials is...


a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden,


Excerpted from.
news.goldseek.com...

If you actually think that such book "Unrestrictive Warfare" does not exist, I also found the following link which references the Chinese book.

GLOBALIZATION AND ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE by William J. Hartman, Major, US Army

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

from Mauddib
And again, I ask you, where is your proof on your statement that I never provide evidence... i am still waiting.


Ok Mauddib, i apologise and take that back.


However, i will still rebuke your assertions and links.

Right now, i will only rebuke the most obvious statement you made (rest will follow later)

U.S. Foreign Policy During the Cold War



With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3


As you can see, even if your assertions on China was real, it doesn't even compare to America's role in breeding terrorists against the Soviet Union. All your article alege China of doing is buying missiles, America actually trains and supplies people involved in a "Jihad".



Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1


So tell me, Mauddib, which is worse?

China supposedly buying U.S missiles from Bin Laden or the U.S training Bin Laden?

A few more link;

BBC Profile of Bin Laden



Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.


MSNBC Link



Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.


And this is from your source



China paid Osama bin Laden several million dollars for access to unexploded American cruise missiles left over from the US attack on his bases three years ago, a senior alleged al-Qaida agent in Europe has claimed.


That is dated October 20, 2001.

That would make China's transactions, even if it was true around 1998. That is 3 years before September 11. Hardly explosive news.

Mauddib's Guardian Source

EDIT:


from Mauddib
I do wonder if people can add this up... China has business relations with Osama Bin Laden.... and in 1999 two Chinese Colonels wrote a new book on how China should wage it's war against the US....one of the things mentioned by these two Chinese officials is...


Haha, so according to your logic, America trained Bin Laden, Bin Laden bombs WTO. Therefore America bombed WTO?


[edit on 22-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I have to say, atleast Muaddib is using articles to back up some of what he is saying. Even though, he is stretching a little bit, but I will buy most of it.
It is alot better than Disturbed just saying anything that comes off the top of his head. I still would disagree that the US has any more right to sell to whomever they wish then the Europeans, aswell as the fact that Americans have made some poor decisions in whom they provide training and arms to.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join