Reality begins to creep in

[j0nes 0]

Quote

China?, What the fuck do they have to do with this?

This is the only point of your post with which I will agree. I don't know where the China accusation came from, but I've not read anythign about their involvement in supporting Islamic Terrorism.

Quote

Dude, Terrorism is not funded by any of those government.

Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya have supported terrorists in the past. Iran and Iraq have paid suicide bombers in the past. Libya funded terrorism in the past and claims to have halted this practice. (see this nifty CIA link http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ly.html)

Quote

In first place they don´t need that much money to do a terrorist action, and secondly, no government will ever want nowadays to be compromised by being caught supporting terrorist actions. The only possible exception is the U.S.A with the Contra and the IRA.

holy 1985 batman. Just curious... when did the U.S. gov't support the IRA. Don't you think that would have strained UK-US relations a tad?

Quote

I know there is a big distrust from the U.S towards China due to economical reasons, but i think that If Iran could give a severe beating to the U.S troops, with China you would get MAD. But somehow i think you guys have more to loose.

I think there is a coherent thought lurking in that chunk of text, but it is so disjointed I have to wonder if English is your primary language?

[billvon 2,470]

>What we are fighting now is insurgents funded in large part by Iran,
>Syria and perhaps China.

Hey, that works! We're at war with China! We won the first war, now we're getting those evil communists. Or terrorists. Or something. You can't criticize anyone's decision to go to war over WMD's, see, because that war is over. The most brilliant bit of spin I've seen since we declared the war wasn't about WMD's.

I see a glorious future in this. We can stay there forever, winning war after war, always against a different enemy. Sure, US troops keep dying, but the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are safe and secure, and that victory sure does taste sweet.

>by forgetting things like PDD 24.

I sense a consistent change in your approach! Now it's blame Clinton first, then the liberal media second?

[Trae 1]

re: "Pro-Bushies, start your engines!

------------------------------------------------------------"

At what point I wonder do you just say and do something like the following :-

"OK every-one that wants to fight this war ..Go To Point A (down-wind)

Everyone who wants to build a new democratic Iraq go to point B. (up-wind)

Clear the area between the two,, stand back a decent distance and nuke the livin' bejesus out of point A.(they did want to fight after all)

Then don't go anywhere near the place for about 100years or so.

Cerazy thought no2 "What would happen if enough nukes detonated the oil and gas in the ground?"
Would the world explode.?

?? on a cosmic level this might be on a par with the recent bit of comet shooting. Blow up a bit and see what happens.

cave man mentality? geta bigger rock.

[j0nes 0]

Quote

We can stay there forever, winning war after war, always against a different enemy.

Bush accomplished what 13 years of U.N. embargoes and U.S. enforced No-fly zones could not:

1) Hussein is no longer in control.
2) Iraq is no longer a military threat.
3) Iraq is no longer capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons to .. unfriendlies.
4) U.N. weapons inspectors were finally able to do their jobs.
5) Hopefully there will be a secular and democratic government (read: U.S. friendly) in place.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In first place they don´t need that much money to do a terrorist action, and secondly, no government will ever want nowadays to be compromised by being caught supporting terrorist actions. The only possible exception is the U.S.A with the Contra and the IRA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


holy 1985 batman. Just curious... when did the U.S. gov't support the IRA. Don't you think that would have strained UK-US relations a tad?

The US government supported the IRA by doing nothing to prevent the IRA from raising $Millions in the USA, by doing nothing to stop arms being shipped from the US to the IRA, and by allowing IRA leaders to enter the US, give speeches and meet with politicians, thereby giving them credibility. And there was strain in US/UK relations over it.

The US only got religion about terrorists after 9/11.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The US government supported the IRA by doing nothing to prevent the IRA from raising $Millions in the USA, by doing nothing to stop arms being shipped from the US to the IRA, and by allowing IRA leaders to enter the US, give speeches and meet with politicians, thereby giving them credibility. And there was strain in US/UK relations over it.

I knows this looks like conflict - do nothing, no wait, do something. But there is a consistent positions here - "Whatever the US government does, even when in opposite conflict something else they do, is wrong."

See? you just have to look for it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

PSSSSTTTT....we went to war in March 2003 against a guy named Saddam Hussein. We defeated him and the Iraqi Army. What we are fighting now is insurgents funded in large part by Iran, Syria and perhaps China.

When do you suppose we started clashing with irregular forces? I suspect it was within the first day or so of our invasion, and if our military planners didn't expect that such combat would be part and parcel of the war than they were foolish indeed.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[j0nes 0]

Quote

The US government supported the IRA by doing nothing to prevent the IRA from raising $Millions in the USA, by doing nothing to stop arms being shipped from the US to the IRA, and by allowing IRA leaders to enter the US, give speeches and meet with politicians, thereby giving them credibility. And there was strain in US/UK relations over it.

The US only got religion about terrorists after 9/11.

There goes that crappy Constitution agasin allowing Free Speech and Right of Assembly. Someone ought to burn that ratty old piece of paper.

As far as weapons being shipped from the US to the IRA. That may or may not have happened. You've supplied no evidence. LEt's SUPPOSE it did. Were those arms purchased or manufactured BY the US gov't?

No. Private individuals and organizations bought them and shipped them (assuming it DID happen).

This is completely different from reimbursing suicide bomber families(Iraq, Iran) and directly funding airplane bombings (Libya).

[livendive 8]

Quote

Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya have supported terrorists in the past.

As has the US, back when bin Laden was fighting the Soviets.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Bush accomplished what 13 years of U.N. embargoes and U.S. enforced No-fly zones could not:

1) Hussein is no longer in control.
> Was the UN seeking to remove SH?

2) Iraq is no longer a military threat.
> Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't much of a military power when we invaded.

3) Iraq is no longer capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons to .. unfriendlies.
> Hindsight being 20/20, were they capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons?

4) U.N. weapons inspectors were finally able to do their jobs.
> Hindsight being 20/20, there were no WMDs. Sounds like they were doing pretty good.

5) Hopefully there will be a secular and democratic government (read: U.S. friendly) in place.
> I was never a fan of the "drop enough bombs and they will like us" foreign policy. It has never worked in the past and its not working now.

[billvon 2,470]

Funny headline today in the NYT:

LEADERS IN IRAQ EXTEND DEADLINE ON CONSTITUTION
-----------------
Vast Differences Remain
-----------------
One Week to Solve Issues Over Islam, Oil Wealth and Political Power

Well, thank goodness they've got the big issues out of the way and are just dealing with the small details!

[j0nes 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush accomplished what 13 years of U.N. embargoes and U.S. enforced No-fly zones could not:

1) Hussein is no longer in control.
> Was the UN seeking to remove SH?
>>>No. It was a U.S. goal... remember all that business about 'regime change'?

2) Iraq is no longer a military threat.
> Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't much of a military power when we invaded.
>>>They had the largest standing Army in the region. They had enough weapons and munitions to invade Iran and Kuwait. They had previously used chemical weapons.

3) Iraq is no longer capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons to .. unfriendlies.
> Hindsight being 20/20, were they capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons?
>>> Iraq has a proven track record of chemical weapons usage. Ask a Kurd if you're confused.


4) U.N. weapons inspectors were finally able to do their jobs.
> Hindsight being 20/20, there were no WMDs. Sounds like they were doing pretty good.
>>>If I shoot you in the head and drop the gun in a river, does that mean I never had a gun? Of course not.

5) Hopefully there will be a secular and democratic government (read: U.S. friendly) in place.
> I was never a fan of the "drop enough bombs and they will like us" foreign policy. It has never worked in the past and its not working now.
>>>And I was never a fan of believing only what is presented to me by CNN or Fox news. For the most part, the people in Iraq don't hate us.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The US only got religion about terrorists after 9/11.

I seem to remember the FBI nabbing several IRA bad guys, and foiling several arms deals here in the US, well before 2001... going as far back as 20+ years before.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bush accomplished what 13 years of U.N. embargoes and U.S. enforced No-fly zones could not:

1) Hussein is no longer in control.
> Was the UN seeking to remove SH?
>>>No. It was a U.S. goal... remember all that business about 'regime change'?
>>>> I seem to recall a lot said about regime change. Conveniently, I believe it was reason number two or three after we determined there were no WMDs.

2) Iraq is no longer a military threat.
> Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't much of a military power when we invaded.
>>>They had the largest standing Army in the region. They had enough weapons and munitions to invade Iran and Kuwait. They had previously used chemical weapons.
>>>> Invade Iran? With what? Invade Kuwait? Tried that before and we all know how good that went.

3) Iraq is no longer capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons to .. unfriendlies.
> Hindsight being 20/20, were they capable of furnishing bio/chem weapons?
>>> Iraq has a proven track record of chemical weapons usage. Ask a Kurd if you're confused.
>>>> Indeed they were used in the past. The US has used WMDs against an asian country. Do you think China and N. Korea believe us to be part of the axis of evil and will attemt to stop our WMD program or effect a regime change? And again, we know now with hindsight that there were no WMDs, regardless of how bad you want them to be there.


4) U.N. weapons inspectors were finally able to do their jobs.
> Hindsight being 20/20, there were no WMDs. Sounds like they were doing pretty good.
>>>If I shoot you in the head and drop the gun in a river, does that mean I never had a gun? Of course not.
>>>> ??? No WMDs. None. Its what the inspectors told us and to our great shock and dismay, exactly what we found. If the purpose of the weapons inspectors was to prevent the proliferation of WMDs and we then discovered there are no WMDs, would it not stand to reason the inspectors were right all along. Maybe just lucky. Maybe they are just still hidden.......

5) Hopefully there will be a secular and democratic government (read: U.S. friendly) in place.
> I was never a fan of the "drop enough bombs and they will like us" foreign policy. It has never worked in the past and its not working now.
>>>And I was never a fan of believing only what is presented to me by CNN or Fox news. For the most part, the people in Iraq don't hate us.
>>>> ??? You know enough people in Iraq to determine that _most_ of them don't hate us? I may be inclined to agree, but I wouldn't stretch that to say that most _like_ us either.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Quote

The US government supported the IRA by doing nothing to prevent the IRA from raising $Millions in the USA, by doing nothing to stop arms being shipped from the US to the IRA, and by allowing IRA leaders to enter the US, give speeches and meet with politicians, thereby giving them credibility. And there was strain in US/UK relations over it.

The US only got religion about terrorists after 9/11.

There goes that crappy Constitution agasin allowing Free Speech and Right of Assembly. Someone ought to burn that ratty old piece of paper.

As far as weapons being shipped from the US to the IRA. That may or may not have happened. You've supplied no evidence. LEt's SUPPOSE it did. Were those arms purchased or manufactured BY the US gov't?

No. Private individuals and organizations bought them and shipped them (assuming it DID happen).

This is completely different from reimbursing suicide bomber families(Iraq, Iran) and directly funding airplane bombings (Libya).

But the US expects other nations to take action against those who attack it (Bush doctrine).

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Burke.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Everon 0]

1) Bush sr. used military action to suppress a revolt against Saddam after the gulf war - he did NOT want a regime change. Twelve years later it's all of a sudden necessary? PUHLEEZE!

2) A military threat to whom? Iraq's economy would have been able to support a war for a few days at best. Kuwait? Do you honestly believe he would even attempt that? Do you know the reason he invaded Kuwait in the gulf war?

3) In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, defected and was debriefed by the CIA. Absolutely all intelligence he gave the CIA was verified, and he informed the agency there was NO WMD program. So I guess he just lied about only one thing, huh?

4) Yes they did do their jobs - and found nothing.

5) That won't happen in our lifetime. Although I'm sure Bush will assure that our "secular" and "democratic" government will soon be a theocracy.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

1) Bush sr. used military action to suppress a revolt against Saddam after the gulf war - he did NOT want a regime change. Twelve years later it's all of a sudden necessary? PUHLEEZE!

Actually Bush Sr. supported the Kurdish revolution at the end of desert storm. He was smart enough to know that it wasn't wise to attempt to force a regime change in Iraq at the time, but to hope it would come from within. It was some hair splitting, but I was just pointing out that the UN was not actively seeking a regime change in Iraq, as was the US. The means were different then and it cost us far less in money and lives. I sincerely hope the outcome will be different this time, but I am skeptical.

[livendive 8]

Quote

2) Iraq is no longer a military threat.
> Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't much of a military power when we invaded.
>>>They had the largest standing Army in the region. They had enough weapons and munitions to invade Iran and Kuwait. They had previously used chemical weapons.

And now we have the largest standing army in the region. We have enough weapons and munitions to invade Iran and Kuwait. And we have previously used nuclear weapons.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Everon 0]

Actually, I meant my observations for the original poster, not you. There is much informative literature out there that explains the sequence of events leading up to the gulf war and its aftermath - written by Iraqi historians and those in Saddam's inner circle. It's a shame people don't realize how corrupt and manipulative the Bush regimes have been concerning the middle east. I for one clearly understand their intense hatred towards us. We're in for one hell of a ride.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Actually, I meant my observations for the original poster, not you. There is much informative literature out there that explains the sequence of events leading up to the gulf war and its aftermath - written by Iraqi historians and those in Saddam's inner circle. It's a shame people don't realize how corrupt and manipulative the Bush regimes have been concerning the middle east. I for one clearly understand their intense hatred towards us. We're in for one hell of a ride.

Its no secret we (the US) have been actively seeking a regime change in Iraq for a long time. Until the current administration, we have been reluctant to spend the money and lives necessary to effect that change until we believed the threat of attack by WMDs was eminent. Unfortunately, we were wrong. Not even close. An inexcusable error in my opinion, but nonetheless we have achieved something that has been a priority for a long time. I sincerely hope we do not make the situation even worse than it already is by compounding further errors in judgment on top of the ones we have already made. Time will tell.

I also don't think the middle east has an encompassing hatred for us. Sure, some extremists do. Some on the other end of the spectrum will love us. I believe the vast majority just want us to leave them alone.

[Everon 0]

Yes, the fundies do, and they will never abate. Even though they are a minority, they have lots of backing, power, and money behind them. This isn't going to end. There are too many people there who have lost loved ones as a direct result of US policy, especially during the Iran-Iraq war (where Reagan's cynical actions knew no bounds), and the gulf war (remember Bush's order not to stop hostilities as the Iraqi army retreated, which led to the massacre at Mittlah Ridge? Even the British referred to us as "twentieth century barbarians.") Unfortunately, the ones who have no animosity nor hatred towards us have no power. That's the key.

[opurt 0]

Hating Bush is perfectly acceptable. Thinking that Iraq was pure folly from the start is also perfectly acceptable.

But pulling out of Iraq now will leave the Iraqis to the tender mercies of Zarqawi and the insurgents.

And that would be a real (blood) stain on America.

Rail against the administration with all your might. But don't hearten the insurgents and discourage the troops in the process.

Both sides - Republican and Democrat - are clawing for political advantage. But that should not blind anyone to what is best for Iraq, America, and the world.

[billvon 2,470]

>Hating Bush is perfectly acceptable.

I don't hate him; heck, I've never even met the guy. He could be a perfectly nice man for all I know. He just makes bad decisions.

>But pulling out of Iraq now will leave the Iraqis to the tender
>mercies of Zarqawi and the insurgents.

I agree.

>And that would be a real (blood) stain on America.

We already have a very real bloodstain. The trick is to stop the bleeding as best as we can. And realizing that we screwed up bigtime is the first step in trying to fix the screwup. The "pretend everything is great" strategy failed pretty miserably.

>Both sides - Republican and Democrat - are clawing for political
> advantage. But that should not blind anyone to what is best for
> Iraq, America, and the world.

What if what is best for Iraq is not what's best for the US? What if they want an Islamic theocracy run by warlords? (They're sure heading in that direction now.) Best think about such things now, rather than reacting to them after they happen.

[Gravitymaster 0]

For Communist China, the terrorist war is simply another stage in their undeclared cold war with the United States. Just as World War II was another stage in the first Cold War for the Soviets, the war on terror is a stage of Cold War II for the People’s Republic.

We are not only in a declared war against terrorism, but also an undeclared war against Communist China. If we are to secure the benefits of victory in the terrorist war, we must also do all we can to win Cold War II.

For a period of at least three years, Communist China saw the Taliban and al Qaeda not as dangers to international stability, but as tools to be used against the United States.

Their initial view of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was best described by Lam: “countries and elements such as Iraq and the bin Laden group constitute some kind of check on United States power” (emphasis added). After the events of September 11, 2001, the Communists took stock of the world, and decided that, in Lam’s words again, “it is not yet time to take on the United States” (emphasis added).

In January 2001, the Washington Times reported that Communist China was selling missile technology to Iraq – contradicting earlier pledges from the People’s Republic that it would stop doing so. Less than a month later, the press revealed that American bombers had targeted a fiber-optic network built for Iraqi air defenses by Huawei Technologies, and ZTE, both firms from Communist China.

Prior to September 11, 2001, Communist China and Iran already had strong military ties going back roughly a decade. In 1991, the Communist sold two tons of uranium to Iran, thus effectively giving birth to the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. Communist China also helped Iran with its secret nuclear plants.

(T)he People’s Republic “still thinks Beijing and Pyongyang should maintain a ‘lips and teeth’ relationship, and that any attack on North Korea – even a limited offensive to wipe out its nuclear installations – would be a challenge to Chinese power and even sovereignty.”

For India the terrorist war and Cold War II are already one and the same.

In many respects, American policy on Communist China suffers from a serious disconnect. This is due to the fact that many policymakers see Communist China from a purely economic perspective, focusing not on its weapons sales, its saber-rattling against its neighbors, or its unstinting support of Stalinist, terrorist North Korea, but instead on its façade of “reform” and its voracious desire for foreign capital. This has clouded what should be very clear – that Communist China is a danger to America’s interests and American security.

If the People’s Republic were itself a victim of real terror, that fact could be used as a way to prod them away from its ties to other terrorist regimes. If, as is really happening, Communist China is merely using the war as cover to repress an independent nation it has conquered, then weaning the Communists off their ties to real terrorism is ridiculous to assume, and the anti-Americanism of Communist policies comes much more into focus.

June 4, 1989 led the Communists to shift away from the first Cold War – between the Soviet Union and the United States – and lay the groundwork for Cold War II – between themselves and the United States.

Victory in Cold War II and the terrorist war will come when American policy makers realize that the two are linked in several areas, and that both our enemies act for the same reason – fear of the United States and the liberty under which it governs itself. Both the terrorists and the Communists know they cannot measure up to American freedom.


Anybody want to dispute that China uses PRNK as a pawn in this undeclared Cold War with the US? Anybody want to dispute that much of the rhetoric coming out of Iran is because they have the backing of China? Anybody want to dispute that China is assisting Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons? Anybody want to dispute that Iran in turn supports terrorism?

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

We are not only in a declared war against terrorism, but also an undeclared war against Communist China

In my humble experience (spending about 2 weeks/month in China), the PRC has little to do with communism. China has developped its own kind of capitalism, which may turn out to be (or may not) Capitalism of the 21st century. Also, in my experience, Chinese are very fond to Americans. The only thing they do not understand is the US support of Taiwan. That does puzzle them to great extends...
And, although that should be another thread in istelf, I am amazed how some people keep getting confused between the notions of democracy and freedom. Two totally different things. China is not a Democracy (and probably will never be as we know democracy), but in a way, people have more freedom than most people would think.
Just my perspective...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."