American Empire? Forget it. China rules!

[hagbard]

A very good read:

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp105.html

[Nyte]

Link not working for me.

[hot_potato]

I'm sure most people could see that this was going to happen eventually, given her 5000 years of history.. I just hope they'll gradually introduce political reforms so that she'll end up as a democracy with Chinese characteristics. I honestly don't think a US-style democratic system will ever work in China.

[hagbard]

I'm sure most people could see that this was going to happen eventually, given her 5000 years of history.. I just hope they'll gradually introduce political reforms so that she'll end up as a democracy with Chinese characteristics. I honestly don't think a US-style democratic system will ever work in China.

Democracy sucks anyway. So does dictatorship. But was is really taking off in China is a form of "Capitalism", not really a free market, but one that in time might become one (like HKs).

[d_jedi]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.

[Bzji]

I just hope they'll gradually introduce political reforms so that she'll end up as a democracy with Chinese characteristics. I honestly don't think a US-style democratic system will ever work in China.

I agree, there is just something in the Chinese blood that makes me think
US-Style of laid back, "60% turn-out is good" type of democracy will not work for China. Chinese ppl are too "hot-blooded" about issues, any issue.

But from a bigger scope, I think Democracy, Communism, are just words of description. At the end, whichever government can provide the best service to the majority of its citizens (you can't satisfy everyone) is the best one.

Go China Go. :D

[hagbard]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.

Huh? and So? Will they be able to do so in ten years without themselves being destroyed?

[asim99]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.

i don't think the american public has the appetite to support that.....not to say that they can't be doctrinated (like so many times before) via the sham that american mainstream news media is

[d_jedi]

Huh? and So? Will they be able to do so in ten years without themselves being destroyed?

If they really, really wanted to.. I'm sure they could. How many nukes does China have? A huge manpower superiority is meaningless if the US has air superiority, and no qualms in engaging in mass slaughter of innocent civilians.

All the US would have to do is covertly identify all of the nuke sites, and either sabatoge or bomb them (with cruise missiles, etc.) before nuking the main centers of political and economic power in China (Beijing, etc.). If the BMD shield ever really works as intended, all the better.

Of course, I'm almost 100% certain this will not happen.. the American public and the international community would simply not stand for it.

[Menace]

Damn NO! I can't buy cheap stuff from Walmart. Even the Dollar Store would run out stuff. Long Live $$$$$$$$$$$ :D :D


If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.

[nuropa]

you can't defeat a country by airpower alone, you need ground troops. US couldn't do it in a rather small country like Iraq with their vastly superior airpower alone, you think they can against China?

[devious9191]

you can't defeat a country by airpower alone, you need ground troops. US couldn't do it in a rather small country like Iraq with their vastly superior airpower alone, you think they can against China?

The war with Iraq was done in a day. It's hard to fight people that aren't afraid of anything and will blow themselves up to kill you. To be quite honest, I think if pushed in a corner the chinese might have the same mentality though. At the end of the day though, the Iraqi's could never make a military strike against US soil, and I don't think the chinese would be able to either, if it came to that.

[Headhunter]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.
I could only see that if the U.S. launched an unexpected nuclear strike first, and bombed the country with the element of surprise.

Without nuclear weapons or a sudden and unexpected attack (involving bombardments, most likely), China would win in a landslide. After Vietnam especially, the U.S. should realise that Asians will do the kind of things that they would never have the stones to do.

Hell, within 20 years, I think the U.S. would have trouble taking on Russia. Putin is putting together a dictatorship right under their noses, and they aren't even blinking.

[devious9191]

I could only see that if the U.S. launched an unexpected nuclear strike first, and bombed the country with the element of surprise.

Without nuclear weapons or a sudden and unexpected attack (involving bombardments, most likely), China would win in a landslide. After Vietnam especially, the U.S. should realise that Asians will do the kind of things that they would never have the stones to do.

Hell, within 20 years, I think the U.S. would have trouble taking on Russia. Putin is putting together a dictatorship right under their noses, and they aren't even blinking.

Vietnam was much the same as Iraq is now. It's very difficult to fight a war from the ground, and try and 'invade' a country. I think the US could quite probably take out most of their military installations from the air and sea, as well as a fair amount of their infrastructure. Why they'd want to do that.. I have no idea. As long as they didn't actually send any men in.. they'd be in good shape.

[d_jedi]

you can't defeat a country by airpower alone, you need ground troops. US couldn't do it in a rather small country like Iraq with their vastly superior airpower alone, you think they can against China?

Yes, you can. As I said, though, that would require a complete utter disregard for human life on the part of the Americans. If they really wanted to, Iraq would be nothing more than a crater (+ oil fields)

[nuropa]

The war with Iraq was done in a day. It's hard to fight people that aren't afraid of anything and will blow themselves up to kill you. To be quite honest, I think if pushed in a corner the chinese might have the same mentality though. At the end of the day though, the Iraqi's could never make a military strike against US soil, and I don't think the chinese would be able to either, if it came to that.

there is a difference between defending a country and invading one.

[devious9191]

there is a difference between defending a country and invading one.

You lost me..

[nuropa]

You lost me..

mentality is different between defend your country vs invade someone else, which one do you think people are willing to fight and die? superior technology and firepower doesn't always win the war for you, korean war and vietnam war for example.

[devious9191]

mentality is different between defend your country vs invade someone else, which one do you think people are willing to fight and die? superior technology and firepower doesn't always win the war for you, korean war and vietnam war for example.

That was the point of my post. If they don't land troops, I think they'd do ok. Straight naval and aerial bombardment with no ground forces.

[nuropa]

That was the point of my post. If they don't land troops, I think they'd do ok. Straight naval and aerial bombardment with no ground forces.

if naval and aerial bombardment is enough, why do you suppose US have to send 150,000 ground troops to Iraq?

[manixc]

good find. it was a nice, long read

[rdtx2002]

ignore d_jedi.. he/she has had too much to drink

[devious9191]

if naval and aerial bombardment is enough, why do you suppose US have to send 150,000 ground troops to Iraq?

You should read the entire thread before posting.. As a previous poster said, the US could wipe Iraq and everyone in it off the face of the planet before the weekend starts..

[espeed]

Give it another 100 years, I think China will be more powerful than the US. Lots of the research on weapons that the US has gained, is from Chinese scientists working in NASA, I was told. Not sure how true this is. In the past, one Chinese NASA rocket scientist was wrongly imprisoned for 10-20 years, with the government thinking that after this time, he would've forgotten everything, But he remembered and brought the tech back to China.

I don't think the US would want to fight a war with them, cuz then Iraq, Russia and all the other countries pissed off at the US would take turns too.

Funny thing is, if emperors were not so corrupt hundreds of years ago in China, there would probably be no USA. Back then, China had everything that other nations didn't, like gunpowder and the likes.

[300spartans]

Balance of Power people! Finally!

[hot_potato]

Ok, I think the concept of using a massive number of nuclear weapons in an engagement is practically dead. It's in no one's interest to see a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario play out - although you'd have to rule out North Korea since they are completely out of tune to the modern world. Anyways, the US has enough nukes to blow up the entire world twice over. China has her fair share too, but I doubt the US would risk engaging in a war where a Chinese nuke might slip by the North American defence umbrella and take out a major US city. What kind of president would get re-elected after that fiasco? I think the number one security concern for the US is to stop terrorists from getting their hands on a single nuke. This is especially the case in Russia where nuclear weapon stockpile facilities are not up to the same security level as in the States. They should be taking a proactive approach on this issue instead of a reactive one.

[hot_potato]

Give it another 100 years, I think China will be more powerful than the US. Lots of the research on weapons that the US has gained, is from Chinese scientists working in NASA, I was told. Not sure how true this is. In the past, one Chinese NASA rocket scientist was wrongly imprisoned for 10-20 years, with the government thinking that after this time, he would've forgotten everything, But he remembered and brought the tech back to China.


Don't forget about the F-117 stealth fighter that was shot down over the former Yugoslavia (the wreckage was sold to China which included the fuselage that was coated with radar-absorbing stealth technology). Also the cruise missle that was fired on Osama's base camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 (during Clinton's term) - the missle was a dud and failed to explode on impact. The whole missle was sold to the Chinese including the intact guidance systems. Of course, who could forget the Orion P-3 spy plane that was given the chop-shop treatment a few years back. It was said that Chinese cryptography caught up by 20 years just from that one plane. They'll reverse engineer anything which is why Congress is worried about US companies sharing high-tech know-how with Chinese companies.

[TigerEROS]

Screw Mainland China. The REAL China is located on Taiwan. The Nationalists were forced out of the mainland in 1949 by the Communists.

They (the Communists) recognize Dr. Sun Yat Sen as the Father of China. Therefore, the Nationalist Party on Taiwan is the TRUE RULING PARTY ... not the old fags in Beijing.

LONG LIVE TAIWAN. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! I HATE MAINLANDERS!!!!!

[Sgt_Strider]

Don't forget about the F-117 stealth fighter that was shot down over the former Yugoslavia (the wreckage was sold to China which included the fuselage that was coated with radar-absorbing stealth technology). Also the cruise missle that was fired on Osama's base camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 (during Clinton's term) - the missle was a dud and failed to explode on impact. The whole missle was sold to the Chinese including the intact guidance systems. Of course, who could forget the Orion P-3 spy plane that was given the chop-shop treatment a few years back. It was said that Chinese cryptography caught up by 20 years just from that one plane. They'll reverse engineer anything which is why Congress is worried about US companies sharing high-tech know-how with Chinese companies.

You got some proof on the wreckage sold to China? I can't imagine it because I would imagine NATO or the U.S do their best to recover it.

[Sgt_Strider]

First of all, the U.S was limited to around 500,000 troops in Vietnam was because Congress wouldn't approve sending more troops. The American public was clearly against the war and therefore that was the max they can send you. The Americans are deploying a similar strategy in Iraq. It's not like they can't send more than 150,000 troops, but they have a reason for that. The main reason is that they don't want to send the wrong signal home. If the U.S military starts sending in more troops, then the American public will get the message that everything is going bad and Bush risks losing support. Believe me, if the American public was the mood to fight a war, Iraq and Vietnam would have been nothing. The Congress and senate only votes according to American opinion.

[Kai Viti]

Screw Mainland China. The REAL China is located on Taiwan. The Nationalists were forced out of the mainland in 1949 by the Communists.

They (the Communists) recognize Dr. Sun Yat Sen as the Father of China. Therefore, the Nationalist Party on Taiwan is the TRUE RULING PARTY ... not the old fags in Beijing.

LONG LIVE TAIWAN. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! I HATE MAINLANDERS!!!!!
Live in the real world. Within my lifetime, Taiwan will again become a province of the one (& great?) China. I think it will benefit both countries if this happened.

Then China can woop Japan's 'donkey' for all the cruel & inhumane suffering they caused the Chinese people in various wars.

Did you know that Japan massacred more people in Nanking than what Nazis did to Jews in entire WWII and a hell more cruel? Unfortunately a little known fact due to a number of factors.

[Sgt_Strider]

Live in the real world. Within my lifetime, Taiwan will again become a province of the one (& great?) China. I think it will benefit both countries if this happened.

Then China can woop Japan's 'donkey' for all the cruel & inhumane suffering they caused the Chinese people in various wars.

Did you know that Japan massacred more people in Nanking than what Nazis did to Jews in entire WWII and a hell more cruel? Unfortunately a little known fact due to a number of factors.

You cannot be more wrong. The Japanese executed about 300,000 Chinese in Nanking/Nanjing. Although that number is often disputed, it is the generally accepted number. The nazi's murdered between 6 to 12 million Jews in Europe. China's military is still relatively old and if they were to fight against the Japanese, the Japanese can still win base on paper. Their military is light years ahead of the Chinese.

I agree, it's not likely Taiwan will ever becoming an independent state. I don't support that, but I have doubts whether it'll be in our lifetime. Japan is starting to show it has interests in the Taiwan strait. It may aid the U.S in defending Taiwan, but that is just my speculation at this point in time.

[Sgt_Strider]

Screw Mainland China. The REAL China is located on Taiwan. The Nationalists were forced out of the mainland in 1949 by the Communists.

They (the Communists) recognize Dr. Sun Yat Sen as the Father of China. Therefore, the Nationalist Party on Taiwan is the TRUE RULING PARTY ... not the old fags in Beijing.

LONG LIVE TAIWAN. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! I HATE MAINLANDERS!!!!!


You are completely ignorant :rolleyes:.

[Sgt_Strider]

Ok, I think the concept of using a massive number of nuclear weapons in an engagement is practically dead. It's in no one's interest to see a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario play out - although you'd have to rule out North Korea since they are completely out of tune to the modern world. Anyways, the US has enough nukes to blow up the entire world twice over. China has her fair share too, but I doubt the US would risk engaging in a war where a Chinese nuke might slip by the North American defence umbrella and take out a major US city. What kind of president would get re-elected after that fiasco? I think the number one security concern for the US is to stop terrorists from getting their hands on a single nuke. This is especially the case in Russia where nuclear weapon stockpile facilities are not up to the same security level as in the States. They should be taking a proactive approach on this issue instead of a reactive one.

AFAIK, China's nuclear weapon lineup is relatively small. Last I heard it's less than 200. Still it's enough to cause some significant amount of damage. However, Chinese ICBM technology is inferior to the U.S'.

[hot_potato]

You got some proof on the wreckage sold to China? I can't imagine it because I would imagine NATO or the U.S do their best to recover it.

Well, I remember reading it from the BBC world news or something of that sort. Remember that back then, Slobodan Milosevic was still in power and he wasn't exactly chummy with the US. At that time, Nato was only using air power to fight the Serbs and they didn't have any boots on the ground so to speak. I guess there wouldn't have been any way to recover the downed plane without sending in a large number of soldiers for what would be a questionable reward (cost-risk benefit). They probably were only concerned with recovering the pilots alive (like in the movie Behind Enemy Lines) and would have just written off the plane as a loss.

[espeed]

Screw Mainland China. The REAL China is located on Taiwan. The Nationalists were forced out of the mainland in 1949 by the Communists.

They (the Communists) recognize Dr. Sun Yat Sen as the Father of China. Therefore, the Nationalist Party on Taiwan is the TRUE RULING PARTY ... not the old fags in Beijing.

LONG LIVE TAIWAN. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! I HATE MAINLANDERS!!!!!

Dude, you got serious problems . What is wrong with you? Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, it's all Chinese. It's people like you who are easy to manipulate through media, and after a few viewings you suddenly say, "I'm Taiwanese man! I'm Taiwanese man! Screw the mainlanders."

Your presidents have been nuts so far. That Chen guy and that Lee dude have been trying to stir **** all the time with their political rhetoric and people like you buy into it. Besides, that Lee guy has some Japanese blood in him, maybe he was a chesspiece all this time.

It's people like you, that make many in the world laugh at the Chinese. You'd rather screw people of your own blood than the Americans who are your "friends".

Look at the solidarity of the Jewish people and learn something.

[Sgt_Strider]

Well, I remember reading it from the BBC world news or something of that sort. Remember that back then, Slobodan Milosevic was still in power and he wasn't exactly chummy with the US. At that time, Nato was only using air power to fight the Serbs and they didn't have any boots on the ground so to speak. I guess there wouldn't have been any way to recover the downed plane without sending in a large number of soldiers for what would be a questionable reward (cost-risk benefit). They probably were only concerned with recovering the pilots alive (like in the movie Behind Enemy Lines) and would have just written off the plane as a loss.

It wouldn't make any sense to me, because NATO could have sent aircrafts to destroy the wreckage or even guard the site through aerial bombing to discourage people from recovering the wreckage. Besides, the KLA was in that area as well and it's not like the Yugoslav army could have recovered the aircraft with ease. I have my doubts in this, but if you can show me a credible link authenticating your information, I will stand by what I said.

[Sgt_Strider]

Dude, you got serious problems . What is wrong with you? Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, it's all Chinese. It's people like you who are easy to manipulate through media, and after a few viewings you suddenly say, "I'm Taiwanese man! I'm Taiwanese man! Screw the mainlanders."

Your presidents have been nuts so far. That Chen guy and that Lee dude have been trying to stir **** all the time with their political rhetoric and people like you buy into it. Besides, that Lee guy has some Japanese blood in him, maybe he was a chesspiece all this time.

It's people like you, that make many in the world laugh at the Chinese. You'd rather screw people of your own blood than the Americans who are your "friends".

Look at the solidarity of the Jewish people and learn something.

And what are you trying to imply? Hopefully you're not using some racist remark or anything like that.

[hot_potato]

You cannot be more wrong. The Japanese executed about 300,000 Chinese in Nanking/Nanjing. Although that number is often disputed, it is the generally accepted number. The nazi's murdered between 6 to 12 million Jews in Europe. China's military is still relatively old and if they were to fight against the Japanese, the Japanese can still win base on paper. Their military is light years ahead of the Chinese.

I agree, it's not likely Taiwan will ever becoming an independent state. I don't support that, but I have doubts whether it'll be in our lifetime. Japan is starting to show it has interests in the Taiwan strait. It may aid the U.S in defending Taiwan, but that is just my speculation at this point in time.

Agreed. The numbers were not even close to those in the Holocaust (wrt to the Nanjing massacre). But I think Russia experienced the greatest loss of life during WWII with something like 30 million dead. However, you have to take into account that Stalin was responsible for a considerable portion of that number.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why are you still allowed to post on this board?

-edit-

Oh, BTW, how did you feel when Israel sold American weapons to China? I felt like sending George W a letter that said "Owned!".

[Sgt_Strider]

Agreed. The numbers were not even close to those in the Holocost (wrt to the Nanjing massacre). But I think Russia experienced the greatest loss of life during WWII with something like 30 million dead. However, you have to take into account that Stalin was responsible for a considerable portion of that number.

I think it was in the 20 million mark. That is why the former Soviet Union always claim that it fought the bulk of the battle, which it did. The allies didn't help the Soviets out until D-Day. That took some pressure off the Eastern front and the Soviets eventually prevailed in the East. I don't think Stalin was responsible for all of those deaths, because the whole nation was rallying behind him. The 20 million Soviets that died, most likely died as a result of enemy fire and or through starvation. It was after the war, that Stalin was responsible for the millions that died in the Gulag.

[hot_potato]

Well, they didn't send over the whole entire plane. Just a small part of the wing from the wreckage that contained the stealth technology. Here's a link to something I found, hopefully the source is correct.

F-117 Shot Down (http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar1999/n03281999_9903281.html)

[Sgt_Strider]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why are you still allowed to post on this board?

-edit-

Oh, BTW, how did you feel when Israel sold American weapons to China? I felt like sending George W a letter that said "Owned!".

He is right because the U.S could devastate China. The U.S does have the economic and military means at this point in time. They have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out China in one day and believe me, THEY COULD. Israel never sold American weapons to China. That is a lie. Israel has sold technology to China that Americans have contributed to the development of. Believe me, Israel doesn't dare selling to the chinese apache helicopters or the F-15 aircraft.

[b166er1337]

if naval and aerial bombardment is enough, why do you suppose US have to send 150,000 ground troops to Iraq?

to the the oil..

bah.

[Sgt_Strider]

Well, they didn't send over the whole entire plane. Just a small part of the wing from the wreckage that contained the stealth technology. Here's a link to something I found, hopefully the source is correct.

F-117 Shot Down (http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar1999/n03281999_9903281.html)

There is no mention in the article of the Yugoslav government selling the wreckage or any part of it to China.

[hot_potato]

I think it was in the 20 million mark. That is why the former Soviet Union always claim that it fought the bulk of the battle, which it did. The allies didn't help the Soviets out until D-Day. That took some pressure off the Eastern front and the Soviets eventually prevailed in the East. I don't think Stalin was responsible for all of those deaths, because the whole nation was rallying behind him. The 20 million Soviets that died, most likely died as a result of enemy fire and or through starvation. It was after the war, that Stalin was responsible for the millions that died in the Gulag.

You could be right about that - I'm a little hazy when it comes to exact numbers on WWII, but suffice it to say, they took a pretty heavy beating during the war. I'm pretty sure Stalin sent people to the gulag during WWII as well. He spent plenty of time consolidating his grip on power by getting rid of possible dissent like intellectuals, etc.

[b166er1337]

Your presidents have been nuts so far. That Chen guy and that Lee dude have been trying to stir **** all the time with their political rhetoric and people like you buy into it. Besides, that Lee guy has some Japanese blood in him, maybe he was a chesspiece all this time.

It's people like you, that make many in the world laugh at the Chinese. You'd rather screw people of your own blood than the Americans who are your "friends".

Look at the solidarity of the Jewish people and learn something.

You don't see a Jewish nation point 600 missles at other Jews. While China has pointed 600 missles at Taiwan; USA has none. Before you accuse of Taiwnaese government kissing Americans' ass, blame your mainland government first.

Besides, no matter how stupid Taiwanese leaders are, they will not authorize to send tanks crushing on their own people.

China's defence minster once said there there is not one person died in Tiananmen Squarre. Of course, they all die OUTSIDE the Tiananmen Square.

[hot_potato]

There is no mention in the article of the Yugoslav government selling the wreckage or any part of it to China.

Perhaps it was part of a conspiracy theory then. I don't see why China or any other US rival would be interested in getting their hands on advanced stealth technology. :lol: Here's some more bed-time reading..

Yugoslavia sells stealth plane to China (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/4.html)


Miscellaneous espionage cases (http://www.dss.mil/training/espionage/1993-95.htm)

More on selling stealth tech to China (http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990919stealth.php)

:cheesygri

[b166er1337]

Live in the real world. Within my lifetime, Taiwan will again become a province of the one (& great?) China. I think it will benefit both countries if this happened.



China will never be great if it is ruled by dictatorships.

[Bzji]

Screw Mainland China. The REAL China is located on Taiwan. The Nationalists were forced out of the mainland in 1949 by the Communists.
Hello! Wake Up! that's because they lost a WAR!
Not to mention majority of the Chinese people hated them for selling out the country to Japan.


They (the Communists) recognize Dr. Sun Yat Sen as the Father of China. Therefore, the Nationalist Party on Taiwan is the TRUE RULING PARTY ... not the old fags in Beijing.
He gets recognition because China gives credit where its due. He was a great man who did great things for China.
Also, Nationalist Party in Taiwan favours reunification with China. Did you even read the article?
And according to your theory, I guess the True Ruling Party of U.S is sitting in England, not those old fags in Washington.

LONG LIVE TAIWAN. DIE COMMUNISTS DIE! I HATE MAINLANDERS!!!!!
Hate them all you want, you'll probably end up working for them.

I actually feel bad for Taiwan because it seems that being squeezed between US and China, Taiwanese people really has no saying in what they want.
US wants to drag this long as possible so they can continue selling weapons and make huge amount of $$$ from Taiwan. US will continue to fund and promote separatist parties in the name of democracy. And hell will freeze over before China will allows Taiwan to become independent. Meanwhile, the actual citizens like everyone on the planet just wants stability and good life, which is entirely possible if unified with China. Unification will only benefit both sides and hurt US, who fears their "sensitive" technology that's already sold to Taiwan will belong to China. US will be kicking themselves right up the a-hole if it turned out they were selling some of their best technology to a competitive power.

I'm not anti-Taiwan, I vouch for a stronger, unified China.

[manixc]

You don't see a Jewish nation point 600 missles at other Jews. While China has pointed 600 missles at Taiwan; USA has none. Before you accuse of Taiwnaese government kissing Americans' ass, blame your mainland government first.

Besides, no matter how stupid Taiwanese leaders are, they will not authorize to send tanks crushing on their own people.

China's defence minster once said there there is not one person died in Tiananmen Squarre. Of course, they all die OUTSIDE the Tiananmen Square.


Weren't the Nationalist brutal to the people when they took over Taiwan?

[hot_potato]

I'm not anti-Taiwan, I vouch for a stronger, unified China.

Perhaps they could institute a one country, two systems arrangement similar to the one in Hong Kong. Except that the head of Taiwan would not be appointed by Beijing.. :lol:

[hot_potato]

Weren't the Nationalist brutal to the people when they took over Taiwan?

Yes, the Taiwanese Aborigines got the bum-rush deal when the Nationalists came over. Sort of reminds me of the whole European-Native American affair (except without as much bloodshed)..

[trini]

oh gorm you killing me with that one.
Dictatorship you say well the US is ruled by a Dictatorship they pretty much tell everyone else what to do before them it was Great Britan so wake up.
Remember the statement Napoleon made?
I've written it so man times here.

[hagbard]

Perhaps they could institute a one country, two systems arrangement similar to the one in Hong Kong. Except that the head of Taiwan would not be appointed by Beijing.. :lol:

I believe I already suggested that. ;)

[manixc]

Perhaps they could institute a one country, two systems arrangement similar to the one in Hong Kong. Except that the head of Taiwan would not be appointed by Beijing.. :lol:

unforunately, Beijing would never allow that. At least I don't think so.

[b166er1337]

Weren't the Nationalist brutal to the people when they took over Taiwan?

Yes...because they came from China ;)

[manixc]

Yes...because they came from China ;)

:confused: Didn't most people in Taiwan come from China? Except for the natives

[hot_potato]

:confused: Didn't most people in Taiwan come from China? Except for the natives

I think the key part is "except for the natives"...
:lol:

[hot_potato]

oh gorm you killing me with that one.
Dictatorship you say well the US is ruled by a Dictatorship they pretty much tell everyone else what to do before them it was Great Britan so wake up.
Remember the statement Napoleon made?
I've written it so man times here.

I'm too lazy to do a search right now - what is it?

[manixc]

I think the key part is "except for the natives"...
:lol:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigine
Aborigines, according to the government's current standard for recognition, make up less 2% of the total population of Taiwan

The Natives are just a very, very small part of the population.

[devious9191]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigine


The Natives are just a very, very small part of the population.

I wonder if the Natives in Taiwan get the same benefits as the natives in Canada? Somehow I doubt it.

[siriuskao]

... Back then, China had everything that other nations didn't, like gunpowder and the likes.

lol, all they did was making fireworks.......all the canons/guns was either imported or made by foriegners

[Sgt_Strider]

Perhaps it was part of a conspiracy theory then. I don't see why China or any other US rival would be interested in getting their hands on advanced stealth technology. :lol: Here's some more bed-time reading..

Yugoslavia sells stealth plane to China (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/4.html)


Miscellaneous espionage cases (http://www.dss.mil/training/espionage/1993-95.htm)

More on selling stealth tech to China (http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990919stealth.php)

:cheesygri

The dss.mil link even said "may". Even if China managed to get a hold of it, I doubt they even have the means to design such stealth capability for their aircraft. China is still heavily dependent on Russia to supply them with arms.

[Sgt_Strider]

Hello! Wake Up! that's because they lost a WAR!
Not to mention majority of the Chinese people hated them for selling out the country to Japan.



He gets recognition because China gives credit where its due. He was a great man who did great things for China.
Also, Nationalist Party in Taiwan favours reunification with China. Did you even read the article?
And according to your theory, I guess the True Ruling Party of U.S is sitting in England, not those old fags in Washington.


Hate them all you want, you'll probably end up working for them.

I actually feel bad for Taiwan because it seems that being squeezed between US and China, Taiwanese people really has no saying in what they want.
US wants to drag this long as possible so they can continue selling weapons and make huge amount of $$$ from Taiwan. US will continue to fund and promote separatist parties in the name of democracy. And hell will freeze over before China will allows Taiwan to become independent. Meanwhile, the actual citizens like everyone on the planet just wants stability and good life, which is entirely possible if unified with China. Unification will only benefit both sides and hurt US, who fears their "sensitive" technology that's already sold to Taiwan will belong to China. US will be kicking themselves right up the a-hole if it turned out they were selling some of their best technology to a competitive power.

I'm not anti-Taiwan, I vouch for a stronger, unified China.

I'm not sure if what you said about the U.S milking Taiwan for their money is true. There are people in the U.S government claiming that Taiwan is stalling with passing a piece of legislation that will allow President Chen to buy submarines and other advance weapons from the U.S for $18 billion dollars. The reason for that is not because President Chen doesn't want to but because how democracy works there. There is complete gridlock as a result of a lack of majority for President Chen. They claim that they still want the U.S to defend Taiwan if the Chinese invades and I don't have my doubts on that. Taiwan needs the U.S more than the U.S needs Taiwan.

[Sgt_Strider]

Perhaps they could institute a one country, two systems arrangement similar to the one in Hong Kong. Except that the head of Taiwan would not be appointed by Beijing.. :lol:

That will not happen. If China goes with a one country two system approach with Taiwan, I can almost gurantee they will appoint the governor for the short term.

[Sgt_Strider]

oh gorm you killing me with that one.
Dictatorship you say well the US is ruled by a Dictatorship they pretty much tell everyone else what to do before them it was Great Britan so wake up.
Remember the statement Napoleon made?
I've written it so man times here.

I don't think it's fair to call the U.S a dictatorship. They are truly a democratic society. The reason why they're calling all the shots is because they're the world's only superpower. They're spending the most money on defense spending and are doing a lot of good in this world. Despite what many of you say, I rather have the U.S as a superpower than Russia/China or even North Korea.

[CanadianMike]

Despite what many of you say, I rather have the U.S as a superpower than Russia/China or even North Korea.
true say.

[d_jedi]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why are you still allowed to post on this board?

Do you have any idea the amount of firepower the Commander and Chief of the USAF (ie. George Dubyah Bush) controls? They have enough nukes left over from the cold war to blow the entire WORLD up several times over.

The US air force would own the Chinese air force with relative ease.

I'm not saying this will ever happen - in fact, it's very, very highly likely we won't see something like it (and we can only hope). What I'm saying is, just purely based on firepower (not talking about the willingness to use it) the US could seriously kick China's ass.

[hagbard]

I don't think it's fair to call the U.S a dictatorship. They are truly a democratic society. The reason why they're calling all the shots is because they're the world's only superpower. They're spending the most money on defense spending and are doing a lot of good in this world. Despite what many of you say, I rather have the U.S as a superpower than Russia/China or even North Korea.

That says a lot. The US has actually created a lot of the problems they're now supposedly cleaning up, they might (might) be better than having the former USSR or NK as a superpower, but not by much.

[JeiJei]

Actually, US can make things easier if they SERIOUSLY want China to collapse.

China's economy relies on a strong foreign investments to manufacture products and US gives them a lot of deals by being a "developing-country" upon their entry to US, world largest economy power.

If US decides to impose a heavy import duty on all products made in China, I don't see China being able to handle that. Foreign investments would eventually leave China since their product cost is no longer cheap for them to sell at US market, which is probably the largest market in the world. (EU maybe larger, but that's a combination of several countries)

The situation is probably worse if US decides to ban China products.. sure US would suffer economically in both situation, but my point is, most countries in the world now rely more to US than US to them.

If I were US president and I see China taking over US's "world super power" crown, I don't see any reason of not doing-so. With all the resources that US has, it can held it crown for years to come. I wouldn't expect to be able to see US collapse in our lifetime.

[confused]

I can't wait for the day when China fux up Taiwan and Japan.

[nuropa]

Actually, US can make things easier if they SERIOUSLY want China to collapse.

China's economy relies on a strong foreign investments to manufacture products and US gives them a lot of deals by being a "developing-country" upon their entry to US, world largest economy power.

If US decides to impose a heavy import duty on all products made in China, I don't see China being able to handle that. Foreign investments would eventually leave China since their product cost is no longer cheap for them to sell at US market, which is probably the largest market in the world. (EU maybe larger, but that's a combination of several countries)

The situation is probably worse if US decides to ban China products.. sure US would suffer economically in both situation, but my point is, most countries in the world now rely more to US than US to them.

If I were US president and I see China taking over US's "world super power" crown, I don't see any reason of not doing-so. With all the resources that US has, it can held it crown for years to come. I wouldn't expect to be able to see US collapse in our lifetime.


capitalism works wonders, most of these US manufacturers are home based in US, have huge political influence in washington. their goal is to make money, not lose money, ban chinese made product is not an option. you think the president gonna risk it or even have a choice? try to piss off a company like walmart, his presidency might as well be over.

[Sgt_Strider]

capitalism works wonders, most of these US manufacturers are home based in US, have huge political influence in washington. their goal is to make money, not lose money, ban chinese made product is not an option. you think the president gonna risk it or even have a choice? try to piss off a company like walmart, his presidency might as well be over.

You are right and that major corporations contribute a lot of money to the President's campaign and so they would have a lot of influence on him. However, when the nation is at war, nothing matters but victory. Are you telling me the President of the United States of America will listen to Walmart over his military officials? Give me a break. The U.S can and will ban all economic contact or aid to China say if they were responsible for Sept. 11. War is even possible and I'm sure you knew that most of the American public was with President Bush right after the attacks and they wanted revenge.

[Sgt_Strider]

Actually, US can make things easier if they SERIOUSLY want China to collapse.

China's economy relies on a strong foreign investments to manufacture products and US gives them a lot of deals by being a "developing-country" upon their entry to US, world largest economy power.

If US decides to impose a heavy import duty on all products made in China, I don't see China being able to handle that. Foreign investments would eventually leave China since their product cost is no longer cheap for them to sell at US market, which is probably the largest market in the world. (EU maybe larger, but that's a combination of several countries)

The situation is probably worse if US decides to ban China products.. sure US would suffer economically in both situation, but my point is, most countries in the world now rely more to US than US to them.

If I were US president and I see China taking over US's "world super power" crown, I don't see any reason of not doing-so. With all the resources that US has, it can held it crown for years to come. I wouldn't expect to be able to see US collapse in our lifetime.

According to experts, China can eclipse the U.S as the world's biggest economy in 20-30 years. That's not a lot of time. I doubt the U.S can unilaterally place sanctions on China with no good reason. The Chinese can easily rally the world against them. Whether the Chinese can match U.S military strength is another matter.

[Sgt_Strider]

That says a lot. The US has actually created a lot of the problems they're now supposedly cleaning up, they might (might) be better than having the former USSR or NK as a superpower, but not by much.

You gotta be kidding me? If communism taken root in this world, there would be no such thing as property. Believe me, the practice of communism is never the way it was meant to be. It sounds good on paper, but hard to implement. Notice why China decides to embrace capitalism despite shunning it and even condemned it for over 30 years? Human beings are flawed right from the getgo and we crave for power. That's why the dictatorship of the proletariet never took place. History is definitely on the U.S' side.

[Sgt_Strider]

Do you have any idea the amount of firepower the Commander and Chief of the USAF (ie. George Dubyah Bush) controls? They have enough nukes left over from the cold war to blow the entire WORLD up several times over.

The US air force would own the Chinese air force with relative ease.

I'm not saying this will ever happen - in fact, it's very, very highly likely we won't see something like it (and we can only hope). What I'm saying is, just purely based on firepower (not talking about the willingness to use it) the US could seriously kick China's ass.

Indeed and hopefully no one will doubt this case. At the moment, I believe the U.S's nuclear arsenal is probably somewhere in the 8-10:1 ratio. Correct me if I'm wrong on the figure, but for sure it's more than 3:1 ratio.

[nuropa]

You are right and that major corporations contribute a lot of money to the President's campaign and so they would have a lot of influence on him. However, when the nation is at war, nothing matters but victory. Are you telling me the President of the United States of America will listen to Walmart over his military officials? Give me a break. The U.S can and will ban all economic contact or aid to China say if they were responsible for Sept. 11. War is even possible and I'm sure you knew that most of the American public was with President Bush right after the attacks and they wanted revenge.

yes, war changes things, but the original post on this didn't imply war with china, it was to collapse chinese economy by stop importing chinese goods. Now US is in debt to China, not sure how that changes things, but China has more leverage on US than ever before

[Sgt_Strider]

yes, war changes things, but the original post on this didn't imply war with china, it was to collapse chinese economy by shutdown trade.

I'm only addressing the individual posts here. I am here to set things straight and not let false information spread.

Edit: Before someone here thinks I'm biased or anything, I'm only stating the truth at the moment. I'm not anti-chinese for I'm a chinese myself. China is a rising superpower and that has been acknowledged by a lot of people. I can only prey that as they get stronger, so will the people's desire for political liberalization.

[eelfliw]

You don't see a Jewish nation point 600 missles at other Jews. While China has pointed 600 missles at Taiwan; USA has none. Before you accuse of Taiwnaese government kissing Americans' ass, blame your mainland government first.
Stop spreading American propaganda.

Do you have any proof that the 600 missile exist other than CIA sources spread via the media?

CIA also said Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a huge lie.

Remember that CIA is not a neutral truth finding organization. It is an American spy agency designed to make America the ruler of the world.

600 missiles..... LOL. WMDs.... Only idiots believe WMDs existed in Iraq.

[d_jedi]

Stop spreading American propaganda.

Do you have any proof that the 600 missile exist other than CIA sources spread via the media?

CIA also said Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a huge lie.

Remember that CIA is not a neutral truth finding organization. It is an American spy agency designed to make America the ruler of the world.

600 missiles..... LOL. WMDs.... Only idiots believe WMDs existed in Iraq.

So you're saying China doesn't have any weapons pointed at Taiwan, just waiting for an invasion?

[spike-spiegel]

I'm not sure if what you said about the U.S milking Taiwan for their money is true. There are people in the U.S government claiming that Taiwan is stalling with passing a piece of legislation that will allow President Chen to buy submarines and other advance weapons from the U.S for $18 billion dollars. The reason for that is not because President Chen doesn't want to but because how democracy works there. There is complete gridlock as a result of a lack of majority for President Chen. They claim that they still want the U.S to defend Taiwan if the Chinese invades and I don't have my doubts on that. Taiwan needs the U.S more than the U.S needs Taiwan.


Well the US wouldn't want the spread of the Eastern communist and allow them to gain territory/power. Though China is not exactly a "Soviet Communist bloc" now but their ideals are far too different than the US even if they are in a "socialist market".

China can definitely become the superpower of the world. But I think any country with that kind of power in that position would be do exactly what the American Empire has been doing. I'm not saying a Chinese Empire would be better or worse, but it might be time for change and it's China's turn.

[p51dray]

Stop spreading American propaganda.

Do you have any proof that the 600 missile exist other than CIA sources spread via the media?

CIA also said Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a huge lie.

Remember that CIA is not a neutral truth finding organization. It is an American spy agency designed to make America the ruler of the world.

600 missiles..... LOL. WMDs.... Only idiots believe WMDs existed in Iraq.

I think it's pretty crazy to think China doesn't have at least 100-200 "East Wind" 11s and 15s within range of Taiwan right now as the 2nd Artillery Division has bases in Fujian and exercises happen in Fujian all the time. Taiwan certainly seems to believe it as they are buying PAC-3s from the States.

Saying there should be one China just because the people in Taiwan are Chinese is irrational; they don't correlate at all. I think it is clear that most Taiwanese don't want to be a part of China, even the Nationalist say they don't want to be a part of the CURRENT China. I think they favour some sort of reunification, but are not satisfied by a SAR status.

ROC being true China? LOL I think they lost the title when Mao kicked their asses. However, I find it troubling to read bull like "Taiwan split from China during a civil war in 1949 and has maintained de facto independence ever since." (CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/13/china-taiwan050313.html), instead of the other way around.

As for Chen, he definitely seems a little shady. Half of the country hates him for wanting to change the country (or island if you don't believe in its sovereignty)'s name while the other half rallies behind him. Personally I don't think the problem will be resolved until things start flying over the strait, but time will tell.

[guest10586]

I think you are misguided on who would win. If it resorted to nukes America might win. Keep in mind that basically every city has a China town so you could have small militias taking up arms everywhere (not likely but possible depending on the issue).

China would dominate in terms of man power and military. Not only do Chinese people like boys to keep the family name, it would create a massive army. China is also a dictatorship so they can sign you up for the army and send you packing. America doesn't have that option though since there would be a huge public outcry. Lastly, everything produced these days is from China. Think about it, factories everywhere in China making bomb instead of your local walmart crap. That's right...America = toast.

Come on, Cuba, Canada, Vietnam have all kicked America out of their countries. Iraq...well, they were unorganized and in chaos before the army got there.

On the other thing, taiwan and the other countries that claim to be independent. I don't think they should be, it really just causes more conflict if anything. Look at Europe and their small countries...what a headache and they still fight all the time.

[Menace]

Not to mention those so called the "REAL" Taiwanese, they are just the friggin Minan speaking Chinese who just arrived on the island a few more years before the "NOT SO REAL" Taiwanese. The internal fighting among these groups will help the Chinese army. How about those spys within the new mainland brides of Taiwanese men? Taiwan will be fcuk. It's so stupid to equal Taiwanese with American. The American were desendant of English, Irish, Dutch and German. The early Taiwanese were pure Minan speaking Chinese from certain area in Fujian province.

Wars sucks! Unfortunately, that is the moral story of Taiwan.



As for Chen, he definitely seems a little shady. Half of the country hates him for wanting to change the country (or island if you don't believe in its sovereignty)'s name while the other half rallies behind him. Personally I don't think the problem will be resolved until things start flying over the strait, but time will tell.

[felixdd]

If it wanted to, the US could absolutely devastate communist China. But the death toll would be catastrophic on a scale unprecedented in history.
At this day and age, any nuclear country could devastate any other country. Hell, even India. That isn't much of a useful statement though, as the rest of the world will totally condemn the act, and join together in a mass concerted effort of beatdown.

If the US wants anything done they should do it fast. Because the world is fast becoming "beige" ;)

[hagbard]

You gotta be kidding me? If communism taken root in this world, there would be no such thing as property. Believe me, the practice of communism is never the way it was meant to be. It sounds good on paper, but hard to implement. Notice why China decides to embrace capitalism despite shunning it and even condemned it for over 30 years? Human beings are flawed right from the getgo and we crave for power. That's why the dictatorship of the proletariet never took place. History is definitely on the U.S' side.

My comment has nothing to do with endorsing communism, it has to do with the US history of overthrowing other governments, colonialism, in some cases, mass murder, hypocracy, and other basic underhandedness.

[guest10586]

At this day and age, any nuclear country could devastate any other country. Hell, even India. That isn't much of a useful statement though, as the rest of the world will totally condemn the act, and join together in a mass concerted effort of beatdown.

If the US wants anything done they should do it fast. Because the world is fast becoming "beige" ;)


I don't know about that. The UN obviously is nothing without the US.

[d_jedi]

I think you are misguided on who would win. If it resorted to nukes America might win. Keep in mind that basically every city has a China town so you could have small militias taking up arms everywhere (not likely but possible depending on the issue).

China would dominate in terms of man power and military. Not only do Chinese people like boys to keep the family name, it would create a massive army. China is also a dictatorship so they can sign you up for the army and send you packing. America doesn't have that option though since there would be a huge public outcry. Lastly, everything produced these days is from China. Think about it, factories everywhere in China making bomb instead of your local walmart crap. That's right...America = toast.

Come on, Cuba, Canada, Vietnam have all kicked America out of their countries. Iraq...well, they were unorganized and in chaos before the army got there.

On the other thing, taiwan and the other countries that claim to be independent. I don't think they should be, it really just causes more conflict if anything. Look at Europe and their small countries...what a headache and they still fight all the time.

Like I said, my scenerio was purely hypothetical, and would rely on having a President who could convince (or just not care) the American public that such a brutal slaughter of innocent life is justified and necessary.

The American Air Force is significantly more advanced than the Chinese.. I have no doubt that they'd be able to have air superiority over much of the country. And, once they have that, it's simply a matter of bombing the s*** out of everything that moves..

[b166er1337]

On the other thing, taiwan and the other countries that claim to be independent. I don't think they should be, it really just causes more conflict if anything. Look at Europe and their small countries...what a headache and they still fight all the time.

Who the hell are you to give such opinion? So all the troubles are started by small countries?
BS...

all the troubles arise when large countries want to invade smaller ones. you dont see small countries pick fight against another nation that is 10 times of their own size.

[b166er1337]

Stop spreading American propaganda.

Do you have any proof that the 600 missile exist other than CIA sources spread via the media?

CIA also said Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a huge lie.

Remember that CIA is not a neutral truth finding organization. It is an American spy agency designed to make America the ruler of the world.

600 missiles..... LOL. WMDs.... Only idiots believe WMDs existed in Iraq.

Dude, stop spreading Chinese proproganda. Everyone knows China has deployed 500~600 missiles aiming at Taiwan.

[b166er1337]

I can't wait for the day when China fux up Taiwan and Japan.

And you sir, i can't wait for the day that you discover you actually have a brain.

[Sgt_Strider]

Stop spreading American propaganda.

Do you have any proof that the 600 missile exist other than CIA sources spread via the media?

CIA also said Iraq had WMDs. That turned out to be a huge lie.

Remember that CIA is not a neutral truth finding organization. It is an American spy agency designed to make America the ruler of the world.

600 missiles..... LOL. WMDs.... Only idiots believe WMDs existed in Iraq.

Just because the CIA made a mistake regarding WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean they're always wrong. AFAIK, it was the CIA who discovered secret missiles in Cuba that sparked the Cuban missile crisis.

[Sgt_Strider]

Well the US wouldn't want the spread of the Eastern communist and allow them to gain territory/power. Though China is not exactly a "Soviet Communist bloc" now but their ideals are far too different than the US even if they are in a "socialist market".

China can definitely become the superpower of the world. But I think any country with that kind of power in that position would be do exactly what the American Empire has been doing. I'm not saying a Chinese Empire would be better or worse, but it might be time for change and it's China's turn.

I disagree and would want to maintain the current status quo. A dictatorship ruling a superpower is extremely dangerous. Even more "dangerous" than the U.S.

[Sgt_Strider]

I think you are misguided on who would win. If it resorted to nukes America might win. Keep in mind that basically every city has a China town so you could have small militias taking up arms everywhere (not likely but possible depending on the issue).

China would dominate in terms of man power and military. Not only do Chinese people like boys to keep the family name, it would create a massive army. China is also a dictatorship so they can sign you up for the army and send you packing. America doesn't have that option though since there would be a huge public outcry. Lastly, everything produced these days is from China. Think about it, factories everywhere in China making bomb instead of your local walmart crap. That's right...America = toast.

Come on, Cuba, Canada, Vietnam have all kicked America out of their countries. Iraq...well, they were unorganized and in chaos before the army got there.

On the other thing, taiwan and the other countries that claim to be independent. I don't think they should be, it really just causes more conflict if anything. Look at Europe and their small countries...what a headache and they still fight all the time.

Factories can't just convert from making toys to making bombs in days. Also those factories are dependent on foreign investments. They're not as powerful as you make them seem to be. The U.S has the world's most powerful military. Their technology is much more advance than China even if they have a larger military. China is dependent on Russia for sophisticated aircrafts and missile. If China was as powerful as you claim they are, they would have invaded Taiwan already without worrying about U.S intervention.

Canada have not kicked the U.S out of our country. Just what are you smoking there? The Americans have a huge presence here in Canada. I'll let you do your homework to find out what it is.

[hagbard]

Just because the CIA made a mistake regarding WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean they're always wrong. AFAIK, it was the CIA who discovered secret missiles in Cuba that sparked the Cuban missile crisis.

It was the Office of Special Operations that pushed the Iraqi WMD story, many in the CIA said it was bogus, except the political appointee at the top.

[guest10586]

Factories can't just convert from making toys to making bombs in days. Also those factories are dependent on foreign investments. They're not as powerful as you make them seem to be. The U.S has the world's most powerful military. Their technology is much more advance than China even if they have a larger military. China is dependent on Russia for sophisticated aircrafts and missile. If China was as powerful as you claim they are, they would have invaded Taiwan already without worrying about U.S intervention.

Canada have not kicked the U.S out of our country. Just what are you smoking there? The Americans have a huge presence here in Canada. I'll let you do your homework to find out what it is.

China could take Taiwan back and I don't know why they don't, possibly investor pressure. I doubt America would back Taiwan unless China was a threat in the future.

Even if the US has more better technology doesn't mean that it has improved a substantial amount from previous wars. Think about it, why don't we have anything new other then nuclear missles? That was over 50 years ago that that got discovered. Where are the ion cannons? New jets and stealth? Anti-air missles and guns can take them out. No stealth is undetectable yet. Lets face it, if the US was really that strong/great as you say they are they would have converted China when they converted the former USSR. The one thing that the US has that China doesn't have is a strong media presence and people believing it is a better life under their rule.

[eelfliw]

Dude, stop spreading Chinese proproganda. Everyone knows China has deployed 500~600 missiles aiming at Taiwan.
Everyone? Then show me proof from a neutral source or China.

All the media reports I've read so far where the reporter indicated sources are quoting CIA sources. And that's where Taiwan gets its info from. CIA is not neutral and CIA can't be trusted. CIA's job is to look after the interest of America. And a weakened China is in the best interest of America. CIA is doing its job just as it did with WMD propaganda. I've not read one report where the reporter saw or counted or received their info from China.

The current regime in TW rules with fear. Not fear of government but fear of a made up monster. US & Russia has more missles than China. Why aren't people in TW afraid of US & Russia? Because the government has not been spreading lies about US & Russia.

This type of fear-mongering of a made up monster was used the by the Nazis. The fear they propagated quickly turned into hatred. And the hatred mobilized Germans which led to the death of millions of innocent Jews.

Your fear and hatred of China demostrates that this campaign is working.

Show me an announcement from the Chinese government that they have missiles pointed @ TW.

[eelfliw]

So you're saying China doesn't have any weapons pointed at Taiwan, just waiting for an invasion?
No.

Pls read my post again and quote me properly. Do not paraphrase because the paraphrasing is totally off mark.

[eelfliw]

I think it's pretty crazy to think China doesn't have at least 100-200 "East Wind" 11s and 15s within range of Taiwan right now as the 2nd Artillery Division has bases in Fujian and exercises happen in Fujian all the time. Taiwan certainly seems to believe it as they are buying PAC-3s from the States.
What the true count is no one on the outside knows. It could be 0, it could be 2000. When I was in NJ 3 yrs ago I saw military trucks hauling huge tubes on the highway. And we all know the primary mission of the NJ branch of military command. That said, TW air force was parking Mirage jets on the highway and firing off 120mm cannons last year in a show of force.

The real danger is not the weapons or where it is pointed. But the mis-information (like the ones you pointed out) that has been generated to manipulate the opinions of the public. And when mis-information leads to fear and hate, a lot of innocent people will pay a price.

[nuropa]

What the true count is no one on the outside knows. It could be 0, it could be 2000. When I was in NJ 3 yrs ago I saw military trucks hauling huge tubes on the highway. And we all know the primary mission of the NJ branch of military command. That said, TW air force was parking Mirage jets on the highway and firing off 120mm cannons last year in a show of force.

The real danger is not the weapons or where it is pointed. But the mis-information (like the ones you pointed out) that has been generated to manipulate the opinions of the public. And when mis-information leads to fear and hate, a lot of innocent people will pay a price.

fear and hate leads to the dark side.

[eelfliw]

Just because the CIA made a mistake regarding WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean they're always wrong. AFAIK, it was the CIA who discovered secret missiles in Cuba that sparked the Cuban missile crisis.
A lot has changed since the days of Kennedy. The CIA that was is not today's CIA. Esp since Sr. Bush was the head of CIA.

CIA is not a neutral fact-finding organization created for the betterment of the world by finding secret weapons caches and alarming the world.

CIA is created for the sole benefit of America. And will use its credibility to create whatever tension or hysteria or rumor as necessary for the betterment of America. A weakend, divided, and isolated China will continue to be the obedient servant that America wants it to be.

[Sgt_Strider]

China could take Taiwan back and I don't know why they don't, possibly investor pressure. I doubt America would back Taiwan unless China was a threat in the future.

Even if the US has more better technology doesn't mean that it has improved a substantial amount from previous wars. Think about it, why don't we have anything new other then nuclear missles? That was over 50 years ago that that got discovered. Where are the ion cannons? New jets and stealth? Anti-air missles and guns can take them out. No stealth is undetectable yet. Lets face it, if the US was really that strong/great as you say they are they would have converted China when they converted the former USSR. The one thing that the US has that China doesn't have is a strong media presence and people believing it is a better life under their rule.


You cannot be more wrong. There is a law in the U.S that requires them to defend Taiwan if the Chinese invades. Bowing to company pressures? You gotta give me a break. In a CNN article from not too long ago, it states that the Chinese administration would do anything to reunify with Taiwan even if it leads to world condemation and economic sanctions.

The U.S never converted the USSR. Communism collapsed as Gorbachev introduced political and economic reforms. There were clear obstacles to this and it eventually lead to it's demise. You clearly show a lack of understanding in history. Do more research before you make such a outrageous claim.

The so called "all powerful chinese military" is still dependent on Russia to supply their arms. Shows really how powerful they are...Considering the U.S can and make their own weapons means they're not dependent on foreign nations for military supplies.

If China is as strong as you say they are, they would have invaded Taiwan long before you and I were born. There are obvious reasons why they haven't and it's not because of foreign companies telling them not to do so :rolleyes:.

Stealth technology is evolving and later generations are harder to detect, like the stealth technology in the next generation F-22.

[Sgt_Strider]

Everyone? Then show me proof from a neutral source or China.

All the media reports I've read so far where the reporter indicated sources are quoting CIA sources. And that's where Taiwan gets its info from. CIA is not neutral and CIA can't be trusted. CIA's job is to look after the interest of America. And a weakened China is in the best interest of America. CIA is doing its job just as it did with WMD propaganda. I've not read one report where the reporter saw or counted or received their info from China.

The current regime in TW rules with fear. Not fear of government but fear of a made up monster. US & Russia has more missles than China. Why aren't people in TW afraid of US & Russia? Because the government has not been spreading lies about US & Russia.

This type of fear-mongering of a made up monster was used the by the Nazis. The fear they propagated quickly turned into hatred. And the hatred mobilized Germans which led to the death of millions of innocent Jews.

Your fear and hatred of China demostrates that this campaign is working.

Show me an announcement from the Chinese government that they have missiles pointed @ TW.

You are hillarious. Why would the Chinese government publicly announce that they have missiles aimed at Taiwan? This would lead the Taiwanese people to further support President Chen and further bolstered their military strength, which Beijing doesn't want. The U.S and Russia are not trying to invade the island while China is. The CIA is not just relying on informants for information on Chinese military capabilities, but also use their highly advance spy satellites. To say that the Chinese doesn't have any missiles aimed at Taiwan is simply ludicrous.

Just so that you know, China used their war games tactics to intimidate Taiwan in 1996 or so. President Clinton sent a naval force towards Taiwan to show them that the U.S does mean business.

[Sgt_Strider]

A lot has changed since the days of Kennedy. The CIA that was is not today's CIA. Esp since Sr. Bush was the head of CIA.

CIA is not a neutral fact-finding organization created for the betterment of the world by finding secret weapons caches and alarming the world.

CIA is created for the sole benefit of America. And will use its credibility to create whatever tension or hysteria or rumor as necessary for the betterment of America. A weakend, divided, and isolated China will continue to be the obedient servant that America wants it to be.

Your statement is clearly biased. Obviously the CIA was created for the sole benefit of America as is every other spy agencies in this world. CSIS was created to defend Canada and so on and so on. It would be stupid if the CIA gave away highly classified information to China if they were to be their possible future adversary.

[Sgt_Strider]

fear and hate leads to the dark side.

I guess that would applies to China as well.

[coldWater]

kinda of topic: In Taiwan, President Days assassination was really a joke......it is like a movie....i can't believe the Green supporters still believe those stories....

i'm not anti-taiwan, i have a taiwanese friend that's VERY green, and i don't have a problem with that....

[Sgt_Strider]

kinda of topic: In Taiwan, President Days assassination was really a joke......it is like a movie....i can't believe the Green supporters still believe those stories....

i'm not anti-taiwan, i have a taiwanese friend that's VERY green, and i don't have a problem with that....

Quite weird to have an assassination attempt during the election campaigning? A lot of people accused President Chen of staging it to get sympathy votes to ensure his victory. It has not been proven true or wrong, but supposively they found a body of an individual leaving a suicide note accepting responsibility. There was a article about it on the Asian news section on cnn.com. Go there and search.

[coldWater]

It has not been proven true or wrong, but supposively they found a body of an individual leaving a suicide note accepting responsibility.

i know the story, that's where i found it more like a movie........2 assassinators, and 2 of them suicided?? and found out after almost a year??

[b166er1337]

i know the story, that's where i found it more like a movie........2 assassinators, and 2 of them suicided?? and found out after almost a year??

Actually, it's more like one assasin. Th other person supplied the assasin with the pistols or so...

[b166er1337]

Everyone? Then show me proof from a neutral source or China.

I've not read one report where the reporter saw or counted or received their info from China.

The current regime in TW rules with fear. Not fear of government but fear of a made up monster. US & Russia has more missles than China. Why aren't people in TW afraid of US & Russia? Because the government has not been spreading lies about US & Russia.

Your fear and hatred of China demostrates that this campaign is working.

Show me an announcement from the Chinese government that they have missiles pointed @ TW.

From the above post, eelfliw is contradicting with himself.
On one hand he believes that the report of Chinese missiles aiming at Taiwan is false. On the other hand he wonders why Taiwanse fear the Chinese threat. More importantly, if i remember correctly, he claims that he is born in TW.

Well, let me answer your question eelfliw.

1) The CIA report of the Chinese missiles threat is fake. Afterall, Chinese government never admits the deployment.

- If the report is false, why didn't China deny it?
- China has developed both long and mid range missiles. Why did they develop these in the first place if they never intend to use them?
- China has repeatedly announcing that it will NOT give up solving the problem with military means.
So what are they going to use if not missiles?

Harsh language perhaps. But it didn't work well at all in all the previous tries.


2) Taiwanese leaders are war-mongers. Their strategies of fear and hostility toward China is working. China is innocent. Afterall, both USA and Russia have way more missiles and nukes than China, why don't Taiwanese fear these two nations?

- This is a very stupid question; but i will answer it for you nontheless.
- Neither Russia or USA is hostile to Taiwan. Neither country has tried to annex Taiwan. And most importantly, neither countries has threatened to attack Taiwan.

So next time, eelfliw, when you wonder why Taiwanese feel fear or hatred toward the China government, don't forget the fact that the Chinese government is the one making the threats.

[hot_potato]

Canada have not kicked the U.S out of our country. Just what are you smoking there? The Americans have a huge presence here in Canada. I'll let you do your homework to find out what it is.

I think the poster was referring to the War of 1812 when the Americans attacked the Town of York (later to become Toronto). Also during that same conflict, the Canadians (which was part of the British Empire at the time) travelled down to Washington and burned down the (original) White House. If you need proof, google is your friend.

[hot_potato]

fear and hate leads to the dark side.

Sounds like Star Wars philosophy to me! :lol:

[b166er1337]

Sounds like Star Wars philosophy to me! :lol:

Actually, it's Jar Jar binks who leads to the dark site ;)

[eelfliw]

You are hillarious. Why would the Chinese government publicly announce that they have missiles aimed at Taiwan? This would lead the Taiwanese people to further support President Chen and further bolstered their military strength, which Beijing doesn't want. The U.S and Russia are not trying to invade the island while China is. The CIA is not just relying on informants for information on Chinese military capabilities, but also use their highly advance spy satellites. To say that the Chinese doesn't have any missiles aimed at Taiwan is simply ludicrous.

Just so that you know, China used their war games tactics to intimidate Taiwan in 1996 or so. President Clinton sent a naval force towards Taiwan to show them that the U.S does mean business.
FYI, I've no doubt that there are missiles pointed at TW. And I've no doubt that the TW military has weapons pointed @ China. In fact, last year, a government official was quoted as saying that TW can bomb the 3 Gorges Dam and flood eastern China. Another was quoted as saying that they have the capability to bomb Shanghai (population 17 million).

Afterall, the civil war has never officially ended. Both sides have declared an end to armed hostilities. But have not negotiated an end to the civil war.

The real issue is not the existance of the 600 missiles, or what TW has pointed at China. The real issue is the campaign of fear being used on the people of Taiwan. Taiwan today is much much safer than, say, in the 1950s when there was constant shelling from both sides. Yet, the party in power in TW likes to use the "600 missile" story to generate fear & hatred for it's own political gains instead of the betterment of the people.

Yes, CIA has advanced sattelites. But you'd think a country like China can hide its missiles (if it has 600 missiles pointed at TW) a little better than Iraq. Why can't the Americans ascertain that Iraq had no WMD yet can count exactly the number of missiles in China?

[eelfliw]

Your statement is clearly biased. Obviously the CIA was created for the sole benefit of America as is every other spy agencies in this world. CSIS was created to defend Canada and so on and so on. It would be stupid if the CIA gave away highly classified information to China if they were to be their possible future adversary.
That's exactly my point. CIA's role is to publish information to the public for the benefit of America. Whether the information is true or not doesn't matter as long as it's good for America. It's basically propaganda. You and I and the general public will never see the real information.

Yet, some misinformed people in TW believe that info is the absolute truth and react accordingly without realizing that they are simply being manipulated.

[eelfliw]

Quite weird to have an assassination attempt during the election campaigning? A lot of people accused President Chen of staging it to get sympathy votes to ensure his victory. It has not been proven true or wrong, but supposively they found a body of an individual leaving a suicide note accepting responsibility. There was a article about it on the Asian news section on cnn.com. Go there and search.
Yes, a drowned body was found. It was initially ruled a murder as the victim owed large sums of money. But, now, in doubt.
No weapon was found.
The suicide note was burned by the dead man's wife so it's heresay.
They could not establish motive.
They could not establish if the gun was used by the dead body.
They could not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, if the dead person was at the scene.
They could not prove if the dead man ever touched the weapon.
People who know the victim say he's a good swimmer.

This is worse than the Air India investigation. There was no evidence. Just a dead body and a lot of speculation.

Tomorrow, March 19th, 100,000 people will march to the president's office to demand the truth (http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT1/2568895.shtml)

[d_jedi]

That's exactly my point. CIA's role is to publish information to the public for the benefit of America. Whether the information is true or not doesn't matter as long as it's good for America. It's basically propaganda. You and I and the general public will never see the real information.

Yet, some misinformed people in TW believe that info is the absolute truth and react accordingly without realizing that they are simply being manipulated.

Much more propoganda coming from the Chinese side, though. What with all of the censoring of the press, the "great firewall of China", etc. and don't even think about saying anything bad about the commies or practicing your religious beliefs..

Why, here's an example from slashdot just today:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050318-062031-1826r.htm

[seefuthead]

i cant wait to graduate university with a business degree. im gonn ago straight to china and open up a sweat shop so i can give u guys good deals. :D. youll see my products on hot deals. in the future. muahahaha.

[eelfliw]

From the above post, eelfliw is contradicting with himself.
On one hand he believes that the report of Chinese missiles aiming at Taiwan is false. On the other hand he wonders why Taiwanse fear the Chinese threat. More importantly, if i remember correctly, he claims that he is born in TW.

Well, let me answer your question eelfliw.

1) The CIA report of the Chinese missiles threat is fake. Afterall, Chinese government never admits the deployment.

- If the report is false, why didn't China deny it?
- China has developed both long and mid range missiles. Why did they develop these in the first place if they never intend to use them?
- China has repeatedly announcing that it will NOT give up solving the problem with military means.
So what are they going to use if not missiles?

Harsh language perhaps. But it didn't work well at all in all the previous tries.


2) Taiwanese leaders are war-mongers. Their strategies of fear and hostility toward China is working. China is innocent. Afterall, both USA and Russia have way more missiles and nukes than China, why don't Taiwanese fear these two nations?

- This is a very stupid question; but i will answer it for you nontheless.
- Neither Russia or USA is hostile to Taiwan. Neither country has tried to annex Taiwan. And most importantly, neither countries has threatened to attack Taiwan.

So next time, eelfliw, when you wonder why Taiwanese feel fear or hatred toward the China government, don't forget the fact that the Chinese government is the one making the threats.
I can't help but laugh out loud when I read your post. :D :D :D It's one thing to engage in a debate and put up a weak argument - I respect that because we all learn to debate better when we engage in debates. It's a learning process. But it's farcical to engage in a debate and not carefully read the other sides arguments, then forming a counter-argument based on incorrect assumption.

1. I do not believe the CIA report of 600 missiles because it serves a political purpose instead of providing actual information. The threat of attack was always there because the civil war never officially ended. Both sides were shelling each other in the 1950s. And Taiwan holds yearly military exercises. But this particular regime in TW has trumpeted the 600 missile story to stratospheric heights to manipulate public opinion for its own political gains. China does not need to deny any false and pitiful accusations. Giving it attention will simply elevate the status of the lie (eg. if you accuse Stephen Harper of being homosexual, will he bother respond to you?). China can build missiles for its own defense. Why does the US build nuclear missiles? Why does Russia have missiles? Who are they trying to attack?

Facts in front of us show that China has a far far more effective weapon against TW IF they choose to use it. Using missiles will destroy TW's infrastructure. Since TW is a part of China, why destroy it? The much better weapon is economics. TW has over $80 billion invested in China and TW's biggest trading partner is China (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EJ24Ad01.html). Simple economic sanctions and blockade will cripple TW and its export based economy.

600 Missiles? Com'on. Get into the 21st century.

2. This is the really funny one. You paraphrased me as saying "Taiwanese leaders are war-mongers." and based your entire argument on that. Where did I say that? LOL :D :D :D First of all, I'm from TW and I'm not a war-monger. So I will never say TW are war-mongers. I said the current political party in power, the current regime, is using a campaign of fear to generate hatred toward the mainlanders. It's FEAR-MONGER. ;)



Nevertheless, you are improving on your debate skills. You are no longer resorting to name calling to get your point across.

[eelfliw]

Much more propoganda coming from the Chinese side, though. What with all of the censoring of the press, the "great firewall of China", etc. and don't even think about saying anything bad about the commies or practicing your religious beliefs..

Why, here's an example from slashdot just today:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050318-062031-1826r.htm
I guess they're trying to work their way up to the CIA level. Whereas censoring information to its own citizens is not as advanced as distributing lies to the whole world. They might get there one day.

Com'on... you must know at least 1 person who actually believed that there's WMD in Iraq during the peak of the propaganda campaign.

[Xtahse]

Show me an announcement from the Chinese government that they have missiles pointed @ TW.

China fired missiles at taiwan i think in year 1998 or 1999 or 2000. it was all over the news. they fired the missiles so close to taiwan that people at "golden gate" or the island around taiwan saw the missiles explode in the ocean. but afterwards China said they were just "testing" the missiles.

US had to send 2 ships in between taiwan and china just to protect taiwan.

[b166er1337]

The real issue is not the existance of the 600 missiles, or what TW has pointed at China. The real issue is the campaign of fear being used on the people of Taiwan. Taiwan today is much much safer than, say, in the 1950s when there was constant shelling from both sides. Yet, the party in power in TW likes to use the "600 missile" story to generate fear & hatred for it's own political gains instead of the betterment of the people.

Yes, CIA has advanced sattelites. But you'd think a country like China can hide its missiles (if it has 600 missiles pointed at TW) a little better than Iraq. Why can't the Americans ascertain that Iraq had no WMD yet can count exactly the number of missiles in China?

whoa dude...where did you get that?
i never know cannon shells can travel for more than 130 kilometers !!

All the shelling occured in some remote islands that are just by the shore of China. You need to get the fact straight. Also, stop saying that Taiwan straight is much safer than 50 years ago. That is completely BS. 50 years ago China has no nukes, no missiles and no advanced aircraft or submarines.

[b166er1337]

Nevertheless, you are improving on your debate skills. You are no longer resorting to name calling to get your point across.

You are very welcome :)

[Sgt_Strider]

FYI, I've no doubt that there are missiles pointed at TW. And I've no doubt that the TW military has weapons pointed @ China. In fact, last year, a government official was quoted as saying that TW can bomb the 3 Gorges Dam and flood eastern China. Another was quoted as saying that they have the capability to bomb Shanghai (population 17 million).

Afterall, the civil war has never officially ended. Both sides have declared an end to armed hostilities. But have not negotiated an end to the civil war.

The real issue is not the existance of the 600 missiles, or what TW has pointed at China. The real issue is the campaign of fear being used on the people of Taiwan. Taiwan today is much much safer than, say, in the 1950s when there was constant shelling from both sides. Yet, the party in power in TW likes to use the "600 missile" story to generate fear & hatred for it's own political gains instead of the betterment of the people.

Yes, CIA has advanced sattelites. But you'd think a country like China can hide its missiles (if it has 600 missiles pointed at TW) a little better than Iraq. Why can't the Americans ascertain that Iraq had no WMD yet can count exactly the number of missiles in China?

Seriously dude, you make me laugh. First you didn't believe there were missiles aimed at Taiwan and now you do. AFAIK, both sides never declared an end to hostility. President Chen has every right to use fear to tell his people that Taiwan needs to beef up its defense. China just passed a law that gives them a legal basis to invade Taiwan if they wish. China has NEVER ruled out a military invasion of Taiwan and you're telling me the average Taiwanese should never worry about being killed by bombs and missiles fired from China?

Seriously what is wrong with you? Just because the U.S made the mistake with WMD's with Iraq doesn not mean they're always wrong. No spy agency is ever perfect and just say that all information coming from the CIA is wrong shows your one sidedness. The Americans NEVER CLAIMED to know how many missiles that China has aimed at Taiwan. They said APPROXIMATELY.

[Sgt_Strider]

That's exactly my point. CIA's role is to publish information to the public for the benefit of America. Whether the information is true or not doesn't matter as long as it's good for America. It's basically propaganda. You and I and the general public will never see the real information.

Yet, some misinformed people in TW believe that info is the absolute truth and react accordingly without realizing that they are simply being manipulated.

The President of the United States will not act on intelligence that the agency say it's not credible. Are you telling me that if the CIA said Canada have WMD's, they will invade us? Give me a break. The president has a brain too :rolleyes:.

There were a lot of intelligence coming in that points to Iraq having WMD's. If the U.S never invaded Iraq, how would they have not known they didn't have WMD's? Sure there were weapons inspector in Iraq, but I hope you realize they weren't very transparent with their activities and cooperative. If Iraq didn't have WMD's and they had nothing to hide, they would have been very transparent with their activities with the U.N weapons inspector. Yet they weren't. What were they trying to hide? If Saddam Hussein had a brain and cooperated then he would still be in power today.

[guest10586]

The President of the United States will not act on intelligence that the agency say it's not credible. Are you telling me that if the CIA said Canada have WMD's, they will invade us? Give me a break. The president has a brain too :rolleyes:.

There were a lot of intelligence coming in that points to Iraq having WMD's. If the U.S never invaded Iraq, how would they have not known they didn't have WMD's? Sure there were weapons inspector in Iraq, but I hope you realize they weren't very transparent with their activities and cooperative. If Iraq didn't have WMD's and they had nothing to hide, they would have been very transparent with their activities with the U.N weapons inspector. Yet they weren't. What were they trying to hide? If Saddam Hussein had a brain and cooperated then he would still be in power today.

If he did cooperate things would have been better for him, at least with the UN weapon inspectors. Then America would have had no other minor reasons to invade. First they say WMD all over the place and terrorism. Then after they declare war, raze 100s of buildings, kill thousands of people and occupy all of Iraq they then turn around and say they found no WMD or any terrorists related to the 9/11 attack. A huge joke to say the least. Don't think of Americans as being our true brother in arms. If we ever cut off trade with them or went against their policy don't think they wouldn't claim that we harbour terrorists and then come in to keep us safe.

[guest10586]

Given the choice to fight along side China or the USA. I would choose China. Bush is a dumb president who uses people to keep the rich happy and America in power. China is the same but where they are different is that China doesn't go invading foreign countries to "free" people or look for supposed terrorist or WMD. China can go in and "free" Taiwan if they really wanted to, right?

[hagbard]

The President of the United States will not act on intelligence that the agency say it's not credible. Are you telling me that if the CIA said Canada have WMD's, they will invade us? Give me a break. The president has a brain too :rolleyes:.

George W. Bush is either a brainless turd or the most deceiptive political leader in world history.

There were a lot of intelligence coming in that points to Iraq having WMD's. If the U.S never invaded Iraq, how would they have not known they didn't have WMD's? Sure there were weapons inspector in Iraq, but I hope you realize they weren't very transparent with their activities and cooperative. If Iraq didn't have WMD's and they had nothing to hide, they would have been very transparent with their activities with the U.N weapons inspector. Yet they weren't. What were they trying to hide? If Saddam Hussein had a brain and cooperated then he would still be in power today.


Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter


RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.

Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict.

The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people.

Scott Ritter is author of ``Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and For All.''

[devious9191]

Give me a break guys. The middle east is a haven for terrorists, murderers and rapists. Whether or not any of these people have nuclear weapons/will have nuclear weapons/or had nuclear weapons when the US dropped the hammer on Iraq in particular is completely irrelevant.

If you think that Saddam didn't give Osama a quick congratulations call Sep 11, you're also living in a dream world. These people are born with guns in their hands, know nothing else except how to kill, and at the end of the day, just don't give a ****.

[b166er1337]

Given the choice to fight along side China or the USA. I would choose China. Bush is a dumb president who uses people to keep the rich happy and America in power. China is the same but where they are different is that China doesn't go invading foreign countries to "free" people or look for supposed terrorist or WMD. China can go in and "free" Taiwan if they really wanted to, right?

Based on China's 5000 year of history, they have invaded a lot of the countries: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Tibet, Xingjian, Laos and Mongolia. Of course, i am kinda generalizing here. Sure many people believe Bush is a dumbass, but don't forget that he maybe also be the smartest dumb person ;)

[hagbard]

Give me a break guys. The middle east is a haven for terrorists, murderers and rapists. Whether or not any of these people have nuclear weapons/will have nuclear weapons/or had nuclear weapons when the US dropped the hammer on Iraq in particular is completely irrelevant.

If you think that Saddam didn't give Osama a quick congratulations call Sep 11, you're also living in a dream world. These people are born with guns in their hands, know nothing else except how to kill, and at the end of the day, just don't give a ****.

Now, what if I made similar comments racist comments you just made about jews? You know, money grabbing, deceptive, etc... but of course, its okay to paint all Arabs/Muslims with the same brush. Again, why is that?

[d_jedi]

I guess they're trying to work their way up to the CIA level. Whereas censoring information to its own citizens is not as advanced as distributing lies to the whole world. They might get there one day.

Com'on... you must know at least 1 person who actually believed that there's WMD in Iraq during the peak of the propaganda campaign.

I'll admit that I was one who believed that Iraq did have an active WMD program. I also believe that the US government did believe that Iraq posed enough of a threat to attack.

Let me explain that last statement a bit further. Except in hindsight, we can almost never know if something or someone poses a threat to us. We can make judgements that can be pretty accurate - but we will make mistakes. Sometimes, we will interpret something that is not a threat as one (called a "false positive"), and other times we will interpret something that is a threat as a non-threat (a "false negative"). Unfortunately, in the absense of better detection capabilities, reducing the number of false positives inevitably increases the number of false negatives, and vice versa.

Traditionally, the Americans have tipped the scales to favour a low false positive rate - so that innocent people are not charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit. September 11, 2001 drastically changed all of this. False negatives leading to another terrorist attack were to be eliminated at all costs. A cautionary additude of "better safe than sorry" prevailed.

And so, the burden of proof of whether Iraq was indeed a threat to US national security was therefore lowered. The CIA and senior government officials accepted lower probability, but higher risk estimates of Iraq's military capabilites. Add to the fact that Iraq was evasive during the weapons inspections (if you'll recall, during the first set of inspections during the '90s, Iraq originally denied they had a bio weapons program - much as they denied they had any WMD programs during the second round). and the US had all the evidence it needed to go to war.

In retrospect, of course, without the WMD, Iraq posed no serious threat to American national security, and thus the invasion was not justified. But in the eyes of the US government (and many Americans) it was better to invade and find nothing, than to not invade, and be attacked with WMD by Iraq (or terrorists using Iraqi weapons).

[d_jedi]

Given the choice to fight along side China or the USA. I would choose China. Bush is a dumb president who uses people to keep the rich happy and America in power. China is the same but where they are different is that China doesn't go invading foreign countries to "free" people or look for supposed terrorist or WMD. China can go in and "free" Taiwan if they really wanted to, right?

China has a terrible human rights record, and denies basic personal freedoms to its citizens. As much as many (including myself, in certain ways) despise GWB, I'd much rather be living in GWB's America (which will only be for a few more years), than communist China.

[devious9191]

Now, what if I made similar comments racist comments you just made about jews? You know, money grabbing, deceptive, etc... but of course, its okay to paint all Arabs/Muslims with the same brush. Again, why is that?

I'm not painting anyone with the same brush. I specifically used the phrase 'terrorists, rapists and murderers'. This wasn't meant to be a generalization of all Muslims. It is a fact though. The 'insurgents' in Iraq, are for the most part not people that have decided to go fight some sort of holy war, but are rather people that have been fighting some sort of war for their entire lives, and don't know anything else.

If anyone has seen the pictures, the one that sticks out in my mind is where they were able to bomb a couple of soldiers, rip them apart in the street, and hang them from a bridge, you probably remember the children dancing around. Is it reasonable that these kids should grow up like this? That women in Iraq and other middle eastern countries shouldn't be able to educate themselves, speak an opinion or even drive? No it isn't.

Though it seems to be the popular decision that 'everyone should mind their own business', I tend to disagree.

[hagbard]

I'm not painting anyone with the same brush. I specifically used the phrase 'terrorists, rapists and murderers'. This wasn't meant to be a generalization of all Muslims. It is a fact though. The 'insurgents' in Iraq, are for the most part not people that have decided to go fight some sort of holy war, but are rather people that have been fighting some sort of war for their entire lives, and don't know anything else.

If anyone has seen the pictures, the one that sticks out in my mind is where they were able to bomb a couple of soldiers, rip them apart in the street, and hang them from a bridge, you probably remember the children dancing around. Is it reasonable that these kids should grow up like this? That women in Iraq and other middle eastern countries shouldn't be able to educate themselves, speak an opinion or even drive? No it isn't.

Though it seems to be the popular decision that 'everyone should mind their own business', I tend to disagree.

You're competely ignorant, maybe we should leave it at that.

[devious9191]

You're competely ignorant, maybe we should leave it at that.

Damn, I was waiting for some intelligent and/or inciteful post from you too. :\ Why do you have to dissapoint me so?

[elty]

what I can say is the Lee and Chen president in Taiwan really suck a$$... they are on par to Bush. other than that I dont hate Taiwan. To me it seems the communist is more logical and have more common sense that those stupid TW president.

[b166er1337]

what I can say is the Lee and Chen president in Taiwan really suck a$$... they are on par to Bush. other than that I dont hate Taiwan. To me it seems the communist is more logical and have more common sense that those stupid TW president.

Those "logical" communists are the same ones that don't respect to human rights, free speech, democracy and freedom.

[eelfliw]

China fired missiles at taiwan i think in year 1998 or 1999 or 2000. it was all over the news. they fired the missiles so close to taiwan that people at "golden gate" or the island around taiwan saw the missiles explode in the ocean. but afterwards China said they were just "testing" the missiles.

US had to send 2 ships in between taiwan and china just to protect taiwan.
Ummm... you better read the whole thread to see what I'm getting at.

[eelfliw]

whoa dude...where did you get that?
i never know cannon shells can travel for more than 130 kilometers !!

All the shelling occured in some remote islands that are just by the shore of China. You need to get the fact straight. Also, stop saying that Taiwan straight is much safer than 50 years ago. That is completely BS. 50 years ago China has no nukes, no missiles and no advanced aircraft or submarines.
Ahhh... Now I get it. You must be too young to know and understand what took place.

TW was under a state of martial law. If you haven't lived in TW during that period, you won't understand. The martial law was lifted after the danger of war subsided. If there's danger today, count on the martial law being enforced again.

Those remote islands were some of the most heavily fortified islands and were the front lines protecting TW during its early years. You're probably not born when it was fortified.

50 years ago, there was the will to "liberate". Today, there's no will to liberate by force unless, as the newly enacted law states, all possibilities have been exhausted.

Think about it..... if TW is in real danger today, why are businesses continuing to invest in TW? Why isn't there martial law (heck, even Canada enacted martial law during the FLQ crisis)? Why are TW businessman free to travel to China? The realities do not support any claims of danger. The politicians want you to believe that there's danger so you'll need the politicians to protect you. That's how they stay in power.

[Sgt_Strider]

Given the choice to fight along side China or the USA. I would choose China. Bush is a dumb president who uses people to keep the rich happy and America in power. China is the same but where they are different is that China doesn't go invading foreign countries to "free" people or look for supposed terrorist or WMD. China can go in and "free" Taiwan if they really wanted to, right?

Your ignorance is really starting to irritate me. There is no such thing as a honest politician. Everybody accepts bribes or money in some form. Don't tell me Paul Martin doesn't give tax incentives to companies because HE DOES. Political leaders gives them "breaks" in return for money and cooperation. Whoever tells me there is an honest politician is lieing to themselves. That's the biggest joke you'll ever hear, trust me. You should ask yourself if the Taiwanese really want to reunite with China. I don't opposte reunification because it has been Chinese territory for centuries and I wouldn't want Quebec to separate if they were in the same situation either.

You are deadwrong if you think a Chinese superpower is better than an American superpower.

[Sgt_Strider]

George W. Bush is either a brainless turd or the most deceiptive political leader in world history.




Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter


RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.

Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict.

The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people.

Scott Ritter is author of ``Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and For All.''

He's human and they make mistakes as well. To put all the blame on George W. Bush is completely ludicrous. Don't forget that his policies is shaped by his aides and they deserve to take blame for the mistake regarding WMD's in Iraq.

Have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? If not, I suggest you do some research. Like I said earlier, if Iraq cooperated fully right from the beginning, then this mess would never have been created. I rather take a chance and remove a potential risk knowing that a mistake was made, but at least some good was done than to sit back idle and wait for a threat to pop up. Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted like Adolf Hitler cannot be trusted. Don't forget Saddam Hussein's gas his own people. I can't think of a more ruthless authoritarian leader in my lifetime than Saddam.

[Sgt_Strider]

Now, what if I made similar comments racist comments you just made about jews? You know, money grabbing, deceptive, etc... but of course, its okay to paint all Arabs/Muslims with the same brush. Again, why is that?

There is some truth to that though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all muslims are terrorists, but most of the terrorist activities are being committed by islamic terrorists.

[Sgt_Strider]

Ahhh... Now I get it. You must be too young to know and understand what took place.

TW was under a state of martial law. If you haven't lived in TW during that period, you won't understand. The martial law was lifted after the danger of war subsided. If there's danger today, count on the martial law being enforced again.

Those remote islands were some of the most heavily fortified islands and were the front lines protecting TW during its early years. You're probably not born when it was fortified.

50 years ago, there was the will to "liberate". Today, there's no will to liberate by force unless, as the newly enacted law states, all possibilities have been exhausted.

Think about it..... if TW is in real danger today, why are businesses continuing to invest in TW? Why isn't there martial law (heck, even Canada enacted martial law during the FLQ crisis)? Why are TW businessman free to travel to China? The realities do not support any claims of danger. The politicians want you to believe that there's danger so you'll need the politicians to protect you. That's how they stay in power.

You are completely ignorant. To say that China doesn't have the will to invade is LUDICROUS. Taiwanese people wants to make money and what better place to invest than China? It's like saying South Korean business man shouldn't invest and build up the South Korean economy even though there is a chance that North Korea will shell them and end up wasting their efforts. Businessmans aren't politicians and their concern is to make money regardless of the current political situations. I believe Taiwan removed martial law after the death of Chiang Kai-shek's death to give democracy a chance not because the danger of a Chinese invasion has eased.

I will say this one more time for you, China has NOT and WILL NOT lose the will to reunite with Taiwan. Period.

[eelfliw]

Seriously dude, you make me laugh. First you didn't believe there were missiles aimed at Taiwan and now you do. AFAIK, both sides never declared an end to hostility. President Chen has every right to use fear to tell his people that Taiwan needs to beef up its defense. China just passed a law that gives them a legal basis to invade Taiwan if they wish. China has NEVER ruled out a military invasion of Taiwan and you're telling me the average Taiwanese should never worry about being killed by bombs and missiles fired from China?

Seriously what is wrong with you? Just because the U.S made the mistake with WMD's with Iraq doesn not mean they're always wrong. No spy agency is ever perfect and just say that all information coming from the CIA is wrong shows your one sidedness. The Americans NEVER CLAIMED to know how many missiles that China has aimed at Taiwan. They said APPROXIMATELY.

I think you mis-understood all my posts and need to go back to read it all again.. I said the 600 missiles claim is made up by CIA to fuel fear for America's gain. The real count is unknown. The WMD in Iraq proved to be a lie for political reasons (to give Bush the reason to attack Iraq). The 600 missiles is yet another ploy to incite fear in TW so US can take advantage.

A bill had been tabled in TW's legislature to spend NT$610 Billion for weapons purchases from the US. This bill has been defeated several times by the opposition but the government is still pushing for it. How convenient for the Americans to be telling TW that there are 600 missiles pointing at them and they try to sell weapons to TW?

Besides, if TW really believed China will invade, why is the military so relaxed right now? No reserves have been called. No curfews have been imposed. No MPs patrolling the streets. The whole 600 missile thing and impending attack thing is just a big publicity exercise to.... well, incite fear.

[eelfliw]

The President of the United States will not act on intelligence that the agency say it's not credible. Are you telling me that if the CIA said Canada have WMD's, they will invade us? Give me a break. The president has a brain too :rolleyes:.

There were a lot of intelligence coming in that points to Iraq having WMD's. If the U.S never invaded Iraq, how would they have not known they didn't have WMD's? Sure there were weapons inspector in Iraq, but I hope you realize they weren't very transparent with their activities and cooperative. If Iraq didn't have WMD's and they had nothing to hide, they would have been very transparent with their activities with the U.N weapons inspector. Yet they weren't. What were they trying to hide? If Saddam Hussein had a brain and cooperated then he would still be in power today.
That's all speculation. And worthy of a new thread (the one about Bush having a brain and Saddam stay in power if he had co-operated).

Would you be open to CSIS searching your home 6 times a year because of allegations of child porn? That's analogous to what the US wants of Saddam.

[eelfliw]

Based on China's 5000 year of history, they have invaded a lot of the countries: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Tibet, Xingjian, Laos and Mongolia. Of course, i am kinda generalizing here. Sure many people believe Bush is a dumbass, but don't forget that he maybe also be the smartest dumb person ;)
Don't forget that China was invaded by a lot of other countries too in recent history. Including the French, British, Americans, Russians, Japanese etc. HK & Macao wasn't leased without a fight. And Japan occupied TW for years (this is in the link that started this thread).

[eelfliw]

You are completely ignorant. To say that China doesn't have the will to invade is LUDICROUS. Taiwanese people wants to make money and what better place to invest than China? It's like saying South Korean business man shouldn't invest and build up the South Korean economy even though there is a chance that North Korea will shell them and end up wasting their efforts. Businessmans aren't politicians and their concern is to make money regardless of the current political situations. I believe Taiwan removed martial law after the death of Chiang Kai-shek's death to give democracy a chance not because the danger of a Chinese invasion has eased.

I will say this one more time for you, China has NOT and WILL NOT lose the will to reunite with Taiwan. Period.
There's a huge difference between being able to invade and having the will to invade. China has the ability to invade TW just as TW has the ability to bomb Shanghai. But neither side has the will to do so. When is the last time you've been to China or TW? Have you seen any signs of preparations for armed confrontation? I didn't see any when I was last there. I did hear lots of hot air being pumped out by politicians in TW. It's all talk designed to earn votes.

Re-unification is eventual. It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, too much of TW's resources are being wasted on separatism.

[hot_potato]

Your ignorance is really starting to irritate me. There is no such thing as a honest politician. Everybody accepts bribes or money in some form. Don't tell me Paul Martin doesn't give tax incentives to companies because HE DOES. Political leaders gives them "breaks" in return for money and cooperation. Whoever tells me there is an honest politician is lieing to themselves.

Ah man, why can't we bring back George Washington - now there's an honest politician! You should catch the A&E specials they run during President's Day week. People back then were a whole different breed. Morally upright and honourable, unlike our current breed of politicians..

[hot_potato]

There is some truth to that though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all muslims are terrorists, but most of the terrorist activities are being committed by islamic terrorists.

It makes you wonder if the Arab world held superpower status would we be hearing about Christian fundamentalists/extremists and Christian terrorists. I believe Islamic extremism is a product of a sense of hopelessness many Muslims feel in the Arab world today. If they are able to correct and abate these injustices (many of them systemic), I'm sure there would be less volunteers willing to sacrifice themselves a la suicide bomber. Anyways, that's just an aside and way off-topic in this thread.. back on track!

[hagbard]

There is some truth to that though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all muslims are terrorists, but most of the terrorist activities are being committed by islamic terrorists.

Terrorism or resistance?

[hagbard]

He's human and they make mistakes as well. To put all the blame on George W. Bush is completely ludicrous. Don't forget that his policies is shaped by his aides and they deserve to take blame for the mistake regarding WMD's in Iraq.

Have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? If not, I suggest you do some research. Like I said earlier, if Iraq cooperated fully right from the beginning, then this mess would never have been created. I rather take a chance and remove a potential risk knowing that a mistake was made, but at least some good was done than to sit back idle and wait for a threat to pop up. Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted like Adolf Hitler cannot be trusted. Don't forget Saddam Hussein's gas his own people. I can't think of a more ruthless authoritarian leader in my lifetime than Saddam.

Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, what a pile of crap. There is no comparsion. Why do people keep digging up these shytty arguments?

[d_jedi]

Terrorism or resistance?

When innocent, non-combatants are TARGETTED (ie. not accidentally bombed/shot.. but TARGETTED). then any "resistance" becomes "terrorism".

[d_jedi]

Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, what a pile of crap. There is no comparsion. Why do people keep digging up these shytty arguments?

There are definate similarities..
Germany lost a war (WW1), and was required to disarm
Iraq lost a war (Gulf War 1) and was required to disarm

Germany began rearming, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles
Iraq began rearming, contrary to UN resolutions

Chamberlin's policy of appeasement was supposed to lead to "peace in our time", but instead lead to the most deadly war in human history
Bush's policy of "you're either with us, or against us" lead to the second gulf war.. we will never know if Iraq would have (without our scrutiny) rearmed with WMDs and became a theat to the entire world.

[hagbard]

When innocent, non-combatants are TARGETTED (ie. not accidentally bombed/shot.. but TARGETTED). then any "resistance" becomes "terrorism".

So, what's that make the United States when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, primarily civilian targets. Or the entire Vietnam war? The occupation and colonisization of the Philippines. And now Iraq. Or how about the targetting of American Indians throughout the 19th century but primarly following the civil war?

By every definition, the US is a terrorist state.

[hagbard]

There are definate similarities..
Germany lost a war (WW1), and was required to disarm
Iraq lost a war (Gulf War 1) and was required to disarm

Germany began rearming, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles
Iraq began rearming, contrary to UN resolutions

U are so full of shyt. Right off, Iraq did disarm nearly completely and in compliance with the resolutions (read the above article). They were "rewarded" by sactions leading to the death of 1/2 million people, and an unprovoked invasion leading to the deaths of 100,000 more. If you're comparing what Hitler did to what Bush did, then you have an accurate comparision.

As for post-WWI Germany, that's a whole other story, also of unreasonable sanctions and retributions which directly lead to another unnecessary world wide conflict. And as for UN resolutions, when is the currrent record holder, Israel, going to live up to even one resolution?

Chamberlin's policy of appeasement was supposed to lead to "peace in our time", but instead lead to the most deadly war in human history
Bush's policy of "you're either with us, or against us" lead to the second gulf war.. we will never know if Iraq would have (without our scrutiny) rearmed with WMDs and became a theat to the entire world.

Iraq was no threat, you may have gotten away with this bs before the invasion but not now. Again, no comparision. Chamberlain did about all he could do, GB was in no position to go to war with Germany at that time, so consider it a delay tactic.

[b166er1337]

So, what's that make the United States when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, primarily civilian targets. Or the entire Vietnam war? The occupation and colonisization of the Philippines. And now Iraq. Or how about the targetting of American Indians throughout the 19th century but primarly following the civil war?

By every definition, the US is a terrorist state.

LOL

Best. Joke. of the day!

[d_jedi]

So, what's that make the United States when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, primarily civilian targets. Or the entire Vietnam war? The occupation and colonisization of the Philippines. And now Iraq. Or how about the targetting of American Indians throughout the 19th century but primarly following the civil war?

By every definition, the US is a terrorist state.

All sides in WW2 committed terrible acts of brutality, and these acts (when did they bomb Tokyo?) must be taken in that context. (Not going to comment on the others, because I don't have enough info).

The treatment of prisoners in the Abu Gharib prison was a terrible war crime. but I don't believe that is representitive of the American treatment of Iraqis, in general.

[hagbard]

All sides in WW2 committed terrible acts of brutality, and these acts (when did they bomb Tokyo?) must be taken in that context. (Not going to comment on the others, because I don't have enough info).

They were unnecessary, and not justified.

The treatment of prisoners in the Abu Gharib prison was a terrible war crime. but I don't believe that is representitive of the American treatment of Iraqis, in general.

Then you're as ignorant as that other guy. The US is actively engaged in this, and where it may now be noticed, they're handed off to other countries to do their dirty work.

[Sgt_Strider]

I think you mis-understood all my posts and need to go back to read it all again.. I said the 600 missiles claim is made up by CIA to fuel fear for America's gain. The real count is unknown. The WMD in Iraq proved to be a lie for political reasons (to give Bush the reason to attack Iraq). The 600 missiles is yet another ploy to incite fear in TW so US can take advantage.

A bill had been tabled in TW's legislature to spend NT$610 Billion for weapons purchases from the US. This bill has been defeated several times by the opposition but the government is still pushing for it. How convenient for the Americans to be telling TW that there are 600 missiles pointing at them and they try to sell weapons to TW?

Besides, if TW really believed China will invade, why is the military so relaxed right now? No reserves have been called. No curfews have been imposed. No MPs patrolling the streets. The whole 600 missile thing and impending attack thing is just a big publicity exercise to.... well, incite fear.

You shold reread your posts and then you'll realize it is you who misunderstood and is confused. The military is not relaxed and they're on constant alert for possible Chinese military action. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean they aren't. It's like here in North America. You don't hear NORAD reporting disturbances because there is no need to. They patrol the skies 24/7/365 regardless of what people believe.

[Sgt_Strider]

That's all speculation. And worthy of a new thread (the one about Bush having a brain and Saddam stay in power if he had co-operated).

Would you be open to CSIS searching your home 6 times a year because of allegations of child porn? That's analogous to what the US wants of Saddam.

If I committed such offense before and they suspect I'm doing it again, then they have the every right to. Don't forget, Iraq had WMD's back in the 80's and early 90's.

[Sgt_Strider]

There's a huge difference between being able to invade and having the will to invade. China has the ability to invade TW just as TW has the ability to bomb Shanghai. But neither side has the will to do so. When is the last time you've been to China or TW? Have you seen any signs of preparations for armed confrontation? I didn't see any when I was last there. I did hear lots of hot air being pumped out by politicians in TW. It's all talk designed to earn votes.

Re-unification is eventual. It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, too much of TW's resources are being wasted on separatism.

It's great that we can agree on one thing. President Chen is fighting a losing battle to create a sovereign Taiwan.

However, you are still wrong in that Taiwan has no reason to launch a pre-emptive strike. Taiwan doesn't possess the military strength to invade China nor China has at this point in time. You are foolish to think China can easily invade and take over Taiwan. Their military use a lot of advance American made weapons.

Certainly if China invades Taiwan, I don't see why they wouldn't launch missile attacks on the mainland; should they have that capability.

Again, you are wrong to think China doesn't have the will to invade Taiwan. Very naive of you to think so.

[Sgt_Strider]

Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, what a pile of crap. There is no comparsion. Why do people keep digging up these shytty arguments?

You are wrong and that there are a lot of similarities. If the U.S was right? What would you be saying right now?

[Sgt_Strider]

Terrorism or resistance?

Terrorism! Targetting innocent civilians is not a resistant movement.

[Sgt_Strider]

So, what's that make the United States when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, primarily civilian targets. Or the entire Vietnam war? The occupation and colonisization of the Philippines. And now Iraq. Or how about the targetting of American Indians throughout the 19th century but primarly following the civil war?

By every definition, the US is a terrorist state.

Those were military strategies of the past. Germany did it to London during the Blitz.

Saddam Hussein placed military weapons near civilian sites during the Iraq war. This is so that if the Americans kill innocent civilians while destroying the military target, then the Americans get blamed. What kind of tactic is that? You must not forget, in war, innocent civilians will always die. It would be incredibly naive to think that cannot happen.

lol...Canada is a "safe haven" for terrorists and what does that make Canada? Give me a break man. The U.S is not a terrorist state, Iran and Iraq is and was.

[Sgt_Strider]

They were unnecessary, and not justified.



Then you're as ignorant as that other guy. The US is actively engaged in this, and where it may now be noticed, they're handed off to other countries to do their dirty work.

There is no proof that the U.S government ordered the torture of POW's at Abu Gharib. It's very foolish of you to make such unsubstantiated statement.

[eelfliw]

You shold reread your posts and then you'll realize it is you who misunderstood and is confused. The military is not relaxed and they're on constant alert for possible Chinese military action. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean they aren't. It's like here in North America. You don't hear NORAD reporting disturbances because there is no need to. They patrol the skies 24/7/365 regardless of what people believe.
Are you joking? Funny you should be making a comment you have absolutely no knowledge of. Have you been thru TW's mandatory military trainings? What knowledge do you have of the soldiers & officer's morales? Do you know how many political appointments were made in the last 5 years (soldiers call them "paratroopers")? Do you know how many ministers of defence have been replaced in the last 5 years? Do you know how much money the previous president scammed from military purchases from France? Do you know that the current president had dodged the military draft due to a "bent arm"?

Worst of all, when we go through military training, we swear to protect the Republic of China, of which Taiwan is a part of. We do not swear to protect the Republic of Taiwan, which Chen is trying to create thru his independence movement. The independence movement has very very little support in the military. Soldiers are willing to die to protect our homes. But not willing to fight for someone who's changing the definition of who we are. And provoking China in the process. Soldiers are there to protect. Not to die for someone who wants to draw a new line in the sand.

[b166er1337]

Are you joking? Funny you should be making a comment you have absolutely no knowledge of. Have you been thru TW's mandatory military trainings? What knowledge do you have of the soldiers & officer's morales? Do you know how many political appointments were made in the last 5 years (soldiers call them "paratroopers")? Do you know how many ministers of defence have been replaced in the last 5 years? Do you know how much money the previous president scammed from military purchases from France? Do you know that the current president had dodged the military draft due to a "bent arm"?

Worst of all, when we go through military training, we swear to protect the Republic of China, of which Taiwan is a part of. We do not swear to protect the Republic of Taiwan, which Chen is trying to create thru his independence movement. The independence movement has very very little support in the military. Soldiers are willing to die to protect our homes. But not willing to fight for someone who's changing the definition of who we are. And provoking China in the process. Soldiers are there to protect. Not to die for someone who wants to draw a new line in the sand.

First of all, the Taiwanese president declared that he will not change the national name or make a new constitution. So your assumpton on Republic of Taiwan will not materialize. Second of all, there is no need to change names as Taiwan is never part of People's Republic of China. Therefore it has no needs to declare independence. It is already independent.

Do you why Taiwan always have to pay more to buy the same weapons, fighters or ships than other countries? Because of China. Without Chinese pressure, it's much easier for Taiwanese to buy weapons from European Arms manufacteurs. Instead, only the US is willing to sell weapons to Taiwan. Without other competitors, it can jack up the price all it want.

You sound like Taiwan's current president is born in a wealthy, high class family who enjoys privilages so he can avoid draft. This is absolutely not the case.
In fact, he was born in one of the poorest family in countryside. If he is exempted from military service, then there is a very good reason for that.

[eelfliw]

If I committed such offense before and they suspect I'm doing it again, then they have the every right to. Don't forget, Iraq had WMD's back in the 80's and early 90's.
And the UN inspectors had declared that they have none after the WMDs were destroyed.

[b166er1337]

And the UN inspectors had declared that they have none after the WMDs were destroyed.

And Saddam Hussein kicked all the weapons inspectors out in the late 90s.
Why did he kick them out if he has nothing to hide?

something smells fishy to me...and to CIA too :lol:

[eelfliw]

It's great that we can agree on one thing. President Chen is fighting a losing battle to create a sovereign Taiwan.

However, you are still wrong in that Taiwan has no reason to launch a pre-emptive strike. Taiwan doesn't possess the military strength to invade China nor China has at this point in time. You are foolish to think China can easily invade and take over Taiwan. Their military use a lot of advance American made weapons.

Certainly if China invades Taiwan, I don't see why they wouldn't launch missile attacks on the mainland; should they have that capability.

Again, you are wrong to think China doesn't have the will to invade Taiwan. Very naive of you to think so.
The military in TW is not prepared for a war. Either invading or defend TW for any lengthy amount of time (the TW defense dept recently estimated 5 days). Yes, they have advanced American weapons. But the soldiers are not willing to die for an unworthy cause such as independence.

The politicians are purposely ignoring that as they continue to provoke China with talks of succession. Of course, their children are not in the military. If China wanted to invade TW, they wouldn't need a law to do it.

The bottom line is, the talks of the 600 missiles is simple fear-mongering as is the talks of the anti-succession bill being a bill authorizing attacks. The politicians are using it to their political advantage to earn support. TW's military can't defend against an attack. And with all the provocations going on, China would have attacked long ago if it really wanted.

[b166er1337]

The politicians are purposely ignoring that as they continue to provoke China with talks of succession. Of course, their children are not in the military. If China wanted to invade TW, they wouldn't need a law to do it.

Sorry, where does Taiwan going to seperate from again?

As far as history is concerned, Taiwan is never under the rule of China after 1949.

[eelfliw]

First of all, the Taiwanese president declared that he will not change the national name or make a new constitution. So your assumpton on Republic of Taiwan will not materialize. Second of all, there is no need to change names as Taiwan is never part of People's Republic of China. Therefore it has no needs to declare independence. It is already independent.
I do hope the Republic of TW will never materialize. But Chen is known to be a liar. He broke his own promise made in 2000 many many times. So I'd take his latest declaration with a grain of salt. He has no credibility internationally. Even less at home.

As for TW changing it's name.... this same old word game have been played for years on the Chinese internet forums (both TW & China's) where the pro-independence supporters are hoping that perception becomes reality. This argument is already several years behind and have long been defeated. Of course Taiwan have never been under direct control of the government of People's Republic of China, but it was under the previous Chinese government. This is the direct result of a civil war that occured over 50 years ago which created 2 governments in China. The civil war caused a split in the government. But not the people, not the language, not the culture and certainly not the nation's borders. In fact, if you check the constitution of both governments, you'll see that this is something both agree on - the border never changed.


You sound like Taiwan's current president is born in a wealthy, high class family who enjoys privilages so he can avoid draft. This is absolutely not the case.
In fact, he was born in one of the poorest family in countryside. If he is exempted from military service, then there is a very good reason for that.
Please check all the facts instead of a small section. Although he is born in a very very poor family. But, today, he's extremely wealthy. His wife was fined last year by the taxation bureau for defrauding millions in taxes by not declaring incomes gained from playing the stock market. The amounts not declared already exceeded all the income Chen earned as a lawyer and politician.

So, the question is, where did the money come from?

As for him being exempted from military... if you know TW's military draft laws, then you know that family income (rich or poor) will not exempt anyone from being drafted. In fact, military service is one popular way for poor families to earn income.

Chen's official reason for dodging the draft is that he has a "bent arm" that prevents him from holding a rifle. I don't know about you... but I haven't seen any normal human being who's arm doesn't bend at the elbow. Medical reason is a popular escape route for people to dodge the draft. Parents will pay doctors to write notes to exempt their kids. Chen's fishy reasoning adds to questions about Chen's credibility.

[eelfliw]

Sorry, where does Taiwan going to seperate from again?

As far as history is concerned, Taiwan is never under the rule of China after 1949.
This is an old argument and is self-defeating. Have you attended school in TW? The geography classes will show you a map of China that includes TW. This is because the Constitution of the Republic of China includes the mainland as well as TW.

As I said before, there are 2 governments a a result of civil war. But the civil war split the government & politicians. Not the land. That is why the constitution of both governments agree that TW is a part of China.

[Sgt_Strider]

Are you joking? Funny you should be making a comment you have absolutely no knowledge of. Have you been thru TW's mandatory military trainings? What knowledge do you have of the soldiers & officer's morales? Do you know how many political appointments were made in the last 5 years (soldiers call them "paratroopers")? Do you know how many ministers of defence have been replaced in the last 5 years? Do you know how much money the previous president scammed from military purchases from France? Do you know that the current president had dodged the military draft due to a "bent arm"?

Worst of all, when we go through military training, we swear to protect the Republic of China, of which Taiwan is a part of. We do not swear to protect the Republic of Taiwan, which Chen is trying to create thru his independence movement. The independence movement has very very little support in the military. Soldiers are willing to die to protect our homes. But not willing to fight for someone who's changing the definition of who we are. And provoking China in the process. Soldiers are there to protect. Not to die for someone who wants to draw a new line in the sand.

It's you that have no knowledge to what you're stating. To say that the Taiwanese are not on constant alert for possible Chinese military action is incredibly naive. That's like saying NORAD is not on constant alert because they don't appear on the news everyday.

[Sgt_Strider]

And the UN inspectors had declared that they have none after the WMDs were destroyed.

Again you are wrong. The UN weapons inspector never said Iraq never had WMD's after the previous stock were destroyed. The reason for that is because Saddam kicked them out in 1998. Please do some research before you make some absurd statement like that.

[Sgt_Strider]

The military in TW is not prepared for a war. Either invading or defend TW for any lengthy amount of time (the TW defense dept recently estimated 5 days). Yes, they have advanced American weapons. But the soldiers are not willing to die for an unworthy cause such as independence.

The politicians are purposely ignoring that as they continue to provoke China with talks of succession. Of course, their children are not in the military. If China wanted to invade TW, they wouldn't need a law to do it.

The bottom line is, the talks of the 600 missiles is simple fear-mongering as is the talks of the anti-succession bill being a bill authorizing attacks. The politicians are using it to their political advantage to earn support. TW's military can't defend against an attack. And with all the provocations going on, China would have attacked long ago if it really wanted.

The anti-scession bill is to give the Chinese a legal framework to invade Taiwan should all peaceful methods for reunification fails. The "600 missiles" is a real threat considering China never said they will not use military force to invade Taiwan. No one knows the exact # of missiles aimed at Taiwan, but to say that it's not a threat is really naive of you. The Taiwanese does have the capability to defend themselves for a certain amount of time before the Americans arrive to help them. Their military is not as ****** as you claim they are. I am certain that the Chinese can defeat the Taiwanese if the Americans don't come to back them up.

[b166er1337]

This is an old argument and is self-defeating. Have you attended school in TW? The geography classes will show you a map of China that includes TW. This is because the Constitution of the Republic of China includes the mainland as well as TW.

As I said before, there are 2 governments a a result of civil war. But the civil war split the government & politicians. Not the land. That is why the constitution of both governments agree that TW is a part of China.

The Constitution of Republic of China stated that mainland is under its control.
Is that true?
of course not, they lost the war to the communists in 1949. What's written in the constitution does not reflect the fact today.

One simple quesiton, if you keep insisting that Taiwan and mainland China belongs to the same country, why do they have different naitonal names?

Ususally in the case of civil war, neither side will try to change the national name, no?

[hagbard]

Originally Posted by d_jedi
When innocent, non-combatants are TARGETTED (ie. not accidentally bombed/shot.. but TARGETTED). then any "resistance" becomes "terrorism".

Originally Posted by hagbard
So, what's that make the United States when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, primarily civilian targets. Or the entire Vietnam war? The occupation and colonisization of the Philippines. And now Iraq. Or how about the targetting of American Indians throughout the 19th century but primarly following the civil war?

By every definition, the US is a terrorist state.

Those were military strategies of the past. Germany did it to London during the Blitz.

Saddam Hussein placed military weapons near civilian sites during the Iraq war. This is so that if the Americans kill innocent civilians while destroying the military target, then the Americans get blamed. What kind of tactic is that? You must not forget, in war, innocent civilians will always die. It would be incredibly naive to think that cannot happen.


Before you make a comment, read what I was responding too. Some clown claimed anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, clearly, the US targets civilians and always has. As for where Saddam located military bases, have you ever bothered to look where the US locates their bases or other military facilities? Didn't think so. You don't call what the US did to its native population a terrorist act? You're a willfully ignorant fool.

lol...Canada is a "safe haven" for terrorists and what does that make Canada? Give me a break man. The U.S is not a terrorist state, Iran and Iraq is and was.

So, according to you, getting payback for previous terrorist acts is terrorism, but the origional act, if carried out by those you support, it isn't.

[eelfliw]

It's you that have no knowledge to what you're stating. To say that the Taiwanese are not on constant alert for possible Chinese military action is incredibly naive. That's like saying NORAD is not on constant alert because they don't appear on the news everyday.
You are either mis-reading my post (#172) or you are purposely changing my words around to suit your argument. This is an argument you cannot win because you have based your assumption on facts that do not exist.

The fact is: I said the TW military is not repared for a war. I did not say that they are not monitoring Chinese military movements.

[eelfliw]

Again you are wrong. The UN weapons inspector never said Iraq never had WMD's after the previous stock were destroyed. The reason for that is because Saddam kicked them out in 1998. Please do some research before you make some absurd statement like that.
How about providing some link to support your claims?

The UN inspectors were in Iraq not long before the US invasion (early 2003) and found no WMDs. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml)

[eelfliw]

The anti-scession bill is to give the Chinese a legal framework to invade Taiwan should all peaceful methods for reunification fails. The "600 missiles" is a real threat considering China never said they will not use military force to invade Taiwan. No one knows the exact # of missiles aimed at Taiwan, but to say that it's not a threat is really naive of you. The Taiwanese does have the capability to defend themselves for a certain amount of time before the Americans arrive to help them. Their military is not as ****** as you claim they are. I am certain that the Chinese can defeat the Taiwanese if the Americans don't come to back them up.
If you have any idea of the way China works, you should know that China does not need a law to initiate military action to protect its soverign land. They've been fighting since 1930's and there was no law back then. Further, the constitution of both governments in China agree that national borders cannot be changed without approval of the people. Therefore, any attempt to remove TW from China (ie. independence) is a violation of the constitution.

The law is unnecessary and simple reinforcement of the current situation. But the pro-independence people have been trumpeting it as a law that authorizes attacks to incite fear for they base their independence campaign on fear.

I encourage you to read some TW based media before passing off your opinions.

[eelfliw]

The Constitution of Republic of China stated that mainland is under its control.
Is that true?

of course not, they lost the war to the communists in 1949. What's written in the constitution does not reflect the fact today.

Not true. I see you have not read the Constitution of Republic of China. Try here --> http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/news/constitutionc.htm

Besides, if you believe that the contitution is invalid, then that implies the government in Taiwan is illegitimate and that the only legitimate government is the one in Beijing. This is incorrect. There are 2 governments in China after civil war. Talk is needed to unite the governments and end duplicity.


One simple quesiton, if you keep insisting that Taiwan and mainland China belongs to the same country, why do they have different naitonal names?

Ususally in the case of civil war, neither side will try to change the national name, no?
The key point is that there are 2 governments, each claiming to be the official government of one China. Each has its own name, constitution, laws, military etc. At this time, UN recognizes the one in Beijing as the legit gov of China. Before 1974, UN only recognizes the one in Taipei as the legit gov. But UN does not recognize both at the same time.

It's a perfect example of the identity crisis experienced during civil war. During the American Civil War, the southern states had its own name as well. A person with split personality can call themselve by several names. But we all know that these names refer to the same person. The fact that they have separate personalities does not make them 2 separate people.

[Sgt_Strider]

How about providing some link to support your claims?

The UN inspectors were in Iraq not long before the US invasion (early 2003) and found no WMDs. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml)

Why don't you check this out. This link is dated 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-16.html

[Sgt_Strider]

You are either mis-reading my post (#172) or you are purposely changing my words around to suit your argument. This is an argument you cannot win because you have based your assumption on facts that do not exist.

The fact is: I said the TW military is not repared for a war. I did not say that they are not monitoring Chinese military movements.

This is what you stated in post #172:

The military in TW is not prepared for a war. Either invading or defend TW for any lengthy amount of time (the TW defense dept recently estimated 5 days). Yes, they have advanced American weapons. But the soldiers are not willing to die for an unworthy cause such as independence.

The politicians are purposely ignoring that as they continue to provoke China with talks of succession. Of course, their children are not in the military. If China wanted to invade TW, they wouldn't need a law to do it.

The bottom line is, the talks of the 600 missiles is simple fear-mongering as is the talks of the anti-succession bill being a bill authorizing attacks. The politicians are using it to their political advantage to earn support. TW's military can't defend against an attack. And with all the provocations going on, China would have attacked long ago if it really wanted.

I don't believe you can win this argument considering you haven't provided any more proof than I did. Your last sentence again shows how ignorant you are. The all powerful Chinese army that you make it seem like they are is not as powerful as you think. If they were, they would have invaded already. Obviously they're not as the U.S is obligated to defend Taiwan at all cost.

[Sgt_Strider]

Before you make a comment, read what I was responding too. Some clown claimed anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, clearly, the US targets civilians and always has. As for where Saddam located military bases, have you ever bothered to look where the US locates their bases or other military facilities? Didn't think so. You don't call what the US did to its native population a terrorist act? You're a willfully ignorant fool.



So, according to you, getting payback for previous terrorist acts is terrorism, but the origional act, if carried out by those you support, it isn't.

So you tell me, how did the US target civilians and always has? Please don't use situations like the indian wars in the past and world war 2 cuz they were completely different situation. Why don't you read this link so that you can better understand the situation.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02272003_200302271.html

The term terroism is not explicitly defined and like democracy, everyone has their own interpretation. I suppose under your interpretation they are, but to me, it doesn't fit mine.

[Sgt_Strider]

If you have any idea of the way China works, you should know that China does not need a law to initiate military action to protect its soverign land. They've been fighting since 1930's and there was no law back then. Further, the constitution of both governments in China agree that national borders cannot be changed without approval of the people. Therefore, any attempt to remove TW from China (ie. independence) is a violation of the constitution.

The law is unnecessary and simple reinforcement of the current situation. But the pro-independence people have been trumpeting it as a law that authorizes attacks to incite fear for they base their independence campaign on fear.

I encourage you to read some TW based media before passing off your opinions.

I have my western media to provide me with all the news in english. The threat of military in the Taiwan strait is much higher than you claim.

[Sgt_Strider]

Not true. I see you have not read the Constitution of Republic of China. Try here --> http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/news/constitutionc.htm

Besides, if you believe that the contitution is invalid, then that implies the government in Taiwan is illegitimate and that the only legitimate government is the one in Beijing. This is incorrect. There are 2 governments in China after civil war. Talk is needed to unite the governments and end duplicity.


The key point is that there are 2 governments, each claiming to be the official government of one China. Each has its own name, constitution, laws, military etc. At this time, UN recognizes the one in Beijing as the legit gov of China. Before 1974, UN only recognizes the one in Taipei as the legit gov. But UN does not recognize both at the same time.

It's a perfect example of the identity crisis experienced during civil war. During the American Civil War, the southern states had its own name as well. A person with split personality can call themselve by several names. But we all know that these names refer to the same person. The fact that they have separate personalities does not make them 2 separate people.

The UN recognized the PRC as the legitimate China in 1971 not 1974.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573055_11/China.html

Also the Taiwanese government is viewed illegitmate because they're not sovereign according to the UN. If they are, then they would have a seat at the UN because only sovereign nations can have a seat.

[eelfliw]

Why don't you check this out. This link is dated 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-16.html
That is funny! So.... do you still live in 1999?

[Sgt_Strider]

That is funny! So.... do you still live in 1999?

You seem to misunderstand my post. I was trying to support what I said earlier by saying that after Saddam Hussein kicked out the UN weapons inspector and therefore before the invasion of Iraq, no one knows for sure that Iraq didn't have WMD's. Please read the posts above before you make such an absurd statement :rolleyes:.

[eelfliw]

I don't believe you can win this argument considering you haven't provided any more proof than I did. Your last sentence again shows how ignorant you are. The all powerful Chinese army that you make it seem like they are is not as powerful as you think. If they were, they would have invaded already. Obviously they're not as the U.S is obligated to defend Taiwan at all cost.
So... I see you are resorting to denial and changing subject when you can't win the debate. The facts lie before our eyes. Read the first sentence in the post. Let me ask you again, where in my post did I say TW does not monitor China's military actions? I said TW is not ready for war with China. I did not say TW does not monitor China's military.

Oh.... it's better to admit that you've misread my post than continue to embarrass yourself.

[balou911]

2 truths.

1) China is gonna have, if not already, the largest GNP and economy. 1 billion plp living there.
2) Largest stadning army, over a 1million soldiers at any time.

Sooner or later, they will be the next superpower.

[eelfliw]

I have my western media to provide me with all the news in english. The threat of military in the Taiwan strait is much higher than you claim.

I suggest you read news reports from both TW & China as well to get a better view of events that are LOCAL to the reporters instead of relying on western media for ALL information. Western media reports tend to skip a lot of important details.

[eelfliw]

You seem to misunderstand my post. I was trying to support what I said earlier by saying that after Saddam Hussein kicked out the UN weapons inspector and therefore before the invasion of Iraq, no one knows for sure that Iraq didn't have WMD's. Please read the posts above before you make such an absurd statement :rolleyes:.
I just find it absurd that we live in 2005 and need to ignore events that occured in 2003 in order to make an argument.

What you said is right if we are in 2002. But we live in 2005.

[b166er1337]

I suggest you read news reports from both TW & China as well to get a better view of events that are LOCAL to the reporters instead of relying on western media for ALL information. Western media reports tend to skip a lot of important details.

Sorry, western medias report are objective. If you read local newspapers, they infuse their own political view on every news.

[Sgt_Strider]

I just find it absurd that we live in 2005 and need to ignore events that occured in 2003 in order to make an argument.

What you said is right if we are in 2002. But we live in 2005.

I was addressing your post #182. If you read it, then you'll understand why I posted such an old thread. Quit typing until you read it. Because it's clear to me that you're ignoring the posts above and just try to create an illusion that you know what you're talking about.

[b166er1337]

I just find it absurd that we live in 2005 and need to ignore events that occured in 2003 in order to make an argument.

What you said is right if we are in 2002. But we live in 2005.

If there was no war in 2003, we would never find out. The fact that Saddam Hussein kicked out UN weapons inspectors in the late 90s seemed suspicious to the world.

Again, if he had nothing to hide, why did him kick them out?

[Sgt_Strider]

I suggest you read news reports from both TW & China as well to get a better view of events that are LOCAL to the reporters instead of relying on western media for ALL information. Western media reports tend to skip a lot of important details.

If I can read chinese, I would. It's funny how you're telling me to listen to Chinese media considering there is no freedom in their report and everything they report have to be ok with the communist government.

Want me to listen to read information that the CCP deems good? No.

[b166er1337]

2 truths.

1) China is gonna have, if not already, the largest GNP and economy. 1 billion plp living there.
2) Largest stadning army, over a 1million soldiers at any time.

Sooner or later, they will be the next superpower.

First of all, quality is a lot more important than quantity in today's wars.

Secondly, yes China is having a strong economy. But don't forget about India whose population will exceed that of China's sometime this century. Then India may become the world largest economy.

[b166er1337]

If I can read chinese, I would. It's funny how you're telling me to listen to Chinese media considering there is no freedom in their report and everything they report have to be ok with the communist government.

Want me to listen to read information that the CCP deems good? No.

Hey, who said there is no freedom in China?

everyone there has the right to read newspapers!!! ;)

[Sgt_Strider]

Hey, who said there is no freedom in China?

everyone there has the right to read newspapers!!! ;)

lol I meant freedom of the press. There is none.

[d_jedi]

Hey, who said there is no freedom in China?

everyone there has the right to read newspapers!!! ;)

As long as said newspapers tow the party line ;)

[Sgt_Strider]

So... I see you are resorting to denial and changing subject when you can't win the debate. The facts lie before our eyes. Read the first sentence in the post. Let me ask you again, where in my post did I say TW does not monitor China's military actions? I said TW is not ready for war with China. I did not say TW does not monitor China's military.

Oh.... it's better to admit that you've misread my post than continue to embarrass yourself.

My first sentence merely addressed your previous sentence accusing me of assuming things. You never provided any proofs to backup what you state. For all we know you could be assuming yourself. I'm not assuming anything because what I'm stating is the truth. Until you come up with a credible source to discredit my information, I won't believe crap coming from you and you have no right to accuse me of anything.

[hot_potato]

Alright, keep it clean boys - let's make sure we don't land any punches below the belt.

[eelfliw]

Sorry, western medias report are objective. If you read local newspapers, they infuse their own political view on every news.
Western media reports provide yet another view. Objective or not depends on which western country. But the problem with western media reports is that it doesn't give enough details and the views are sometimes formed without local knowledge and history.

[eelfliw]

I was addressing your post #182. If you read it, then you'll understand why I posted such an old thread. Quit typing until you read it. Because it's clear to me that you're ignoring the posts above and just try to create an illusion that you know what you're talking about.
If you only read western media reports of the TW straight situation, then I do know a lot more than you.

[eelfliw]

If there was no war in 2003, we would never find out. The fact that Saddam Hussein kicked out UN weapons inspectors in the late 90s seemed suspicious to the world.

Again, if he had nothing to hide, why did him kick them out?
That's a question only Hussein can answer. But, as it turned out, he has nothing to hide.

[d_jedi]

If you only read western media reports of the TW straight situation, then I do know a lot more than you.

The only English site I know of from that area is the Xinhua news agency.. which I believe is run by the communist China government (which puts it's credibility in definate question..)

[eelfliw]

If I can read chinese, I would. It's funny how you're telling me to listen to Chinese media considering there is no freedom in their report and everything they report have to be ok with the communist government.

Want me to listen to read information that the CCP deems good? No.
That's a major misconception on your part. The western media would have you believe China's news sources are locked up so tight even air can't escape. If you only read western media and form opinions based on what's available in western media, then you won't get a fair view of China/TW. Afterall, TW/China thru the eyes of a "foreigner" is a very different place than viewed thru the eyes of a local. Just like some Americans think of Canada as a land of ice and snow despite the fact that Americans are our next door neighbour and speak the same language we do.

Though the press freedom of official national news sources are very limited. But local media enjoys quite a bit of leeway. Especially Chinese media sources based outside of TW & China.

If one has to form a credible and informed opinion of a far away place, then the least they can do is to read all they can from all spectrums of life and look at all sides of the story. Western media is only one aspect out of many.

[eelfliw]

My first sentence merely addressed your previous sentence accusing me of assuming things. You never provided any proofs to backup what you state. For all we know you could be assuming yourself. I'm not assuming anything because what I'm stating is the truth. Until you come up with a credible source to discredit my information, I won't believe crap coming from you and you have no right to accuse me of anything.
You have a right not to believe. And you have a right to express your opinion. You can also make all the accusations you want. But you can't deny the fact that you haven't got enough knowledge about this subject to engage in this debate in a meaningful way.

I won't waste time trying to prove a point that is considered common knowledge for anyone who wants to debate this issue in depth. Acquiring knowledge is your task.

[eelfliw]

The only English site I know of from that area is the Xinhua news agency.. which I believe is run by the communist China government (which puts it's credibility in definate question..)
I know the challenge you face.

Imagine the challenges a person who can only read Chinese faces (and there are over a billion of them) trying to learn about Canada and the ins and outs of Canada's political scene, Quebec separation, native rights issues etc. The lack of Canadian news in Chinese language in China/TW ensures that they won't have enough info to form a thorough view of Canada, much less an educated opinion.

About once every 3 month, someone in TW discussion forums will use Quebec separatists as cause celebre to justify TW separatism. If I happen to be there, I quickly send them running in tar & feathers. :cheesygri

[Sgt_Strider]

That's a major misconception on your part. The western media would have you believe China's news sources are locked up so tight even air can't escape. If you only read western media and form opinions based on what's available in western media, then you won't get a fair view of China/TW. Afterall, TW/China thru the eyes of a "foreigner" is a very different place than viewed thru the eyes of a local. Just like some Americans think of Canada as a land of ice and snow despite the fact that Americans are our next door neighbour and speak the same language we do.

Though the press freedom of official national news sources are very limited. But local media enjoys quite a bit of leeway. Especially Chinese media sources based outside of TW & China.

If one has to form a credible and informed opinion of a far away place, then the least they can do is to read all they can from all spectrums of life and look at all sides of the story. Western media is only one aspect out of many.

It seems to me that you're selecting what you want to read in my post. I already said I cannot read chinese. Western media are not biased toward the situation.

[Sgt_Strider]

You have a right not to believe. And you have a right to express your opinion. You can also make all the accusations you want. But you can't deny the fact that you haven't got enough knowledge about this subject to engage in this debate in a meaningful way.

I won't waste time trying to prove a point that is considered common knowledge for anyone who wants to debate this issue in depth. Acquiring knowledge is your task.

It's funny how you make such a statement that can only be applied to you. I suggest you attend some university classes before you make such an accusation that can only be referred to you.

You cannot claim that you have won this debate nor know more than me when you don't even provide any evidence to support your claim that the Taiwanese cannot defend themselves against a Chinese attack or the Chinese lacking the will to invade. If you were to do that in university, you would have failed long before you would even see your B.A.

[b166er1337]

Though the press freedom of official national news sources are very limited. But local media enjoys quite a bit of leeway. Especially Chinese media sources based outside of TW & China.

If one has to form a credible and informed opinion of a far away place, then the least they can do is to read all they can from all spectrums of life and look at all sides of the story. Western media is only one aspect out of many.

All the Chinese media in overseas are run by the same headquarters back in China, HK or TW. Again, they will infuse their own political agendas into every political news no matter where they publish the newspaper.

[b166er1337]

That's a question only Hussein can answer. But, as it turned out, he has nothing to hide.

Ok, so tell what your opinion is regarding WMD in Iraq before the American invasion 2 years ago .

Do you believe that Saddam is hiding something because he consistently harrassing UN weapon inspectors and finally kick them out?

[hagbard]

Ok, so tell what your opinion is regarding WMD in Iraq before the American invasion 2 years ago .

Do you believe that Saddam is hiding something because he consistently harrassing UN weapon inspectors and finally kick them out?

Saddam never kicked UN weapon's inspectors out. This was yet another bit of American propaganda. The inspectors left because the US at the time was dropping bombs around them (during the Clinton adminstration) and we're pulled out by the UN for their safety.

[hagbard]

So you tell me, how did the US target civilians and always has? Please don't use situations like the indian wars in the past and world war 2 cuz they were completely different situation. Why don't you read this link so that you can better understand the situation.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02272003_200302271.html

Gimme a f*ing break. The US Defense Department?? They are not completely different situations, and what the American's did to the Indians is hardly a "war", it was genocide. Do a bit of reading yourself.


The term terroism is not explicitly defined and like democracy, everyone has their own interpretation. I suppose under your interpretation they are, but to me, it doesn't fit mine.

Because you're an American butt kisser.

[d_jedi]

I know the challenge you face.
Imagine the challenges a person who can only read Chinese faces (and there are over a billion of them) trying to learn about Canada and the ins and outs of Canada's political scene, Quebec separation, native rights issues etc. The lack of Canadian news in Chinese language in China/TW ensures that they won't have enough info to form a thorough view of Canada, much less an educated opinion.
Especially considering if there was such a news source (and I'd be surprised if there weren't any Chinese lanaguage newspapers in Canada.. given the large asian population).. it'd be blocked by the Chinese government (at least, over the Internet).

About once every 3 month, someone in TW discussion forums will use Quebec separatists as cause celebre to justify TW separatism. If I happen to be there, I quickly send them running in tar & feathers. :cheesygri
Is it true that China threatened to invade if Taiwan even held a referendum on the subject (I recall hearing that.. but it's not something I follow especially closely..)?

[d_jedi]

Saddam never kicked UN weapon's inspectors out. This was yet another bit of American propaganda. The inspectors left because the US at the time was dropping bombs around them (during the Clinton adminstration) and we're pulled out by the UN for their safety.

I believe you're mistaken on that one..

[hagbard]

I believe you're mistaken on that one..

As usual, it is you and your buddy who are wrong. Run a Google search on "Saddam + arms inspectors + thrown out" . Here is an example of what you'll get:

Media Lens Alert: Iraq and Arms Inspectors - The Big Lie, Part 2

What A Difference 3 Years Makes: UK News Coverage of Why the Inspectors Left Iraq


In 1998 and 1999 it was difficult for the media to avoid some of the more obvious facts about the withdrawal of arms inspectors from Iraq in December 1998. NBC Today accurately reported at the time:

"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and - as they had promised to do. As a result, the UN ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning." (Katie Couric, NBC's Today, December 16, 1998. Quoted, 'What a difference 4 years makes: News coverage of why the inspectors left Iraq', http://www.fair.org)

The UK media reported the same version of events:

"A few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency." (Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, 'Missile blitz on Iraq', December 17, 1998)

A year later, this version of events was still commonly reported by the UK media:

"The UN special commission charged with overseeing the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pulled out of Iraq in mid-December, just before the US and Britain launched a series of air strikes." (David Hirst, 'Iraq turns down "evil" UN plan to ease sanctions,' The Guardian, December 20, 1999)

And:

"The last inspectors were withdrawn to allow the four-day concentrated bombing campaign of last December." ('Russia calls urgent Iraq meeting,' Guardian staff and agencies June 2, 1999)

As discussed in Part 1, this version of events is not at all popular with the US/UK governments. Since the election of George W. Bush and the terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush and Blair have appeared increasingly determined to launch a further assault against Iraq in pursuit of "regime change". If military force is to be justified, Iraq has to be portrayed as a country that cannot be relied upon to cooperate peacefully with arms inspectors. This is no simple task - Iraqi lying and cat and mouse games aside, by 1998 Unscom arms inspectors +had+ delivered 90-95% disarmament after seven years of intrusive inspections.

The change in US/UK government goals has been accompanied by a change in the US/UK media version of what happened in December 1998. Thus, four years after the comment quoted above, NBC Today reports:

"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting UN weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago." (Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, August 3, 2002)

The same transformation is found in the UK media. Brian Whitaker of The Guardian wrote in February of this year:

"[Saddam] could still save his skin by allowing the weapons inspectors - who were thrown out of Iraq in 1998 - to return." (Whitaker, 'Life after Saddam: the winners and losers,' The Guardian, February 25, 2002)

The Observer noted last month that, "the Iraqi dictator is more dangerous than he was in 1998, when the last UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq." (Peter Beaumont and Kamal Ahmed, 'Dossier to show Iraqi nuclear arms race,' The Observer, September 22, 2002)

The Independent reports:

"Bill Clinton ... ordered Operation Desert Fox, the last big air offensive against Iraq, after the eviction of UN weapons inspectors in December 1998." (Rupert Cornwell, 'United States - President calls for support inside and outside America,' The Independent, September 5, 2002)

The Daily Telegraph is of course on-side:

"Saddam... refused UN weapons-inspectors access to sites such as his presidential palaces - then expelled them from Iraq." (Editorial, 'Convince us, Mr Blair,' Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2002)

The BBC's Jane Corbin stated on Panorama that "the inspectors were thrown out... and a divided UN Security Council let Saddam get away with it." (Panorama, The Case Against Saddam, BBC1, September 23, 2002)

On the BBC's Lunchtime News, James Robbins reported that inspectors were "asked to leave" after relations with Iraq broke down. (BBC1, September 17, 2002)

On BBC Radio 4, foreign secretary Jack Straw was allowed to promote the deception (and he surely knows the truth) unchallenged by interviewer John Humphrys:

"The inspectors were able to get in and to do their work until the international community's resolve, I'm afraid, fractured rather, and Saddam Hussein was able to exploit that and expel the inspectors." (Jack Straw, Today, BBC Radio 4, October 12, 2002)

When Humphrys was challenged by Media Lens reader Darren Smith, Humphrys replied tersely:

"What you fail to appreciate is that Today interviewers don't have enough time to challenge every assertion made in every interview." (Email to Darren Smith, October 16, 2002)

In fact time pressures are such that the BBC, like the rest of the media, is unable to challenge any assertions in any interviews where the 'ejection' of arms inspectors is concerned. Time is always available for politicians to endlessly repeat their deceptive claims, however.

Around the country the deception is repeated again and again - here is only one more example, from The Scotsman:

"The dream result, Mr Blair is understood to believe, is for the UN to set a deadline for Saddam to re-admit the expelled weapons inspectors." ('Blair stands tough and readies for war,' The Scotsman, September 4, 2002. Darren Smith to Media Lens, September 4, 2002)

There are barely detectable exceptions but the overwhelming trend, as in the US, has been to move from an understanding that inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, to the claim, in 2002, that they were expelled.

The fact that inspectors had been fundamentally successful in disarming Iraq, and were withdrawn after the spying scandal erupted, and after deliberate attempts to provoke the Iraqis, adds unwanted colour to the black and white picture of events that the US/UK governments are seeking to impose on the public. Only a stark 'good versus evil' clash has the power to generate the required public support for military action - nuance is a liability.

It goes without saying that the medium for communicating this lethally distorted picture of the world is the corporate mass media - without them, it simply could not be done. This is the awesome extent of their responsibility for mass violence leading to mass death.

[Sgt_Strider]

Gimme a f*ing break. The US Defense Department?? They are not completely different situations, and what the American's did to the Indians is hardly a "war", it was genocide. Do a bit of reading yourself.




Because you're an American butt kisser.

:rolleyes:

Why don't you ask any qualified experts out there. The term terrorism and democracy is not EXPLICITLY STATED. If you don't believe me then why dont' you check out the official name of North Korea. Here I'll save you the time and tell you. It's called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. So you're telling me the BS country of North Korea is democratic? Why don't you do some reading yourself before you criticize me.

Same concept here because the term is loosely held. I am not saying the Americans never committed terrorism, but the fact that there is no definitive meaning for terrorism means it applies differently to everyone else.

[Sgt_Strider]

Saddam never kicked UN weapon's inspectors out. This was yet another bit of American propaganda. The inspectors left because the US at the time was dropping bombs around them (during the Clinton adminstration) and we're pulled out by the UN for their safety.

You cannot be more wrong. Read this before you attempt to act like a smartass :rolleyes:: http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2002/10/000044.html

[d_jedi]

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000

[B40]

Who wants to see d_jedi's high school year book pic? :cheesygri

[hagbard]

You cannot be more wrong. Read this before you attempt to act like a smartass :rolleyes:: http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2002/10/000044.html

What's your point, they were instructed to leave by the UN not Iraq.

[Sgt_Strider]

Who wants to see d_jedi's high school year book pic? :cheesygri

and how does this relates to this thread? :confused:

[Sgt_Strider]

What's your point, they were instructed to leave by the UN not Iraq.

Can you not read? Look at the damn 2nd paragraph.

[hagbard]

:rolleyes:

Why don't you ask any qualified experts out there. The term terrorism and democracy is not EXPLICITLY STATED. If you don't believe me then why dont' you check out the official name of North Korea. Here I'll save you the time and tell you. It's called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. So you're telling me the BS country of North Korea is democratic? Why don't you do some reading yourself before you criticize me.

Same concept here because the term is loosely held. I am not saying the Americans never committed terrorism, but the fact that there is no definitive meaning for terrorism means it applies differently to everyone else.

IOW, one mans "terrorist" is anothers "freedom fighter". Already pointed that out, but you're not following the bouncing ball.

[b166er1337]

What's your point, they were instructed to leave by the UN not Iraq.

LOL
they were instructed to leave by UN BECAUSE IRAQ DIDNT COOPERATE WITH THE INSPECTORS, AT ALL.
So what are the inspectors going to do?
Have a sit down?


be realistic dude.


your hatred toward america has clearly shroud your vision. Anger, fear & aggression will only lead you to the dark side of the force.

[hagbard]

Can you not read? Look at the damn 2nd paragraph.

I suggest you go back and read that one more time.

[hagbard]

LOL
they were instructed to leave by UN BECAUSE IRAQ DIDNT COOPERATE WITH THE INSPECTORS, AT ALL.
So what are the inspectors going to do?
Have a sit down?

They didn't cooperate, that isn't the same as being ordered out. Israel has never cooperated nor allowed UN inspections, why not invade and bomb Israel then?


be realistic dude.

You first.


your hatred toward america has clearly shroud your vision. Anger, fear will aggression will only lead you to the dark side of the force.

No, no chance of me joining with the Americans.

[b166er1337]

They didn't cooperate, that isn't the same as being ordered out. Isreael has never cooperated nor allowed UN inspections, why not invade and bomb Israel then?





LOL

thank you for consistently providing daily jokes for the entire RFD forum.

[hagbard]

LOL

thank you for consistently providing daily jokes for the entire RFD forum.

Keep those blinders on tight.

[webdoctors]

omg, i can't believe i just read through this entire thread.

Can we drop Iraq, how can i ignore posts wid da word iraq in them?? this thread is about China/US!!!

Secondly, China is growing, but it won't reach USA superpower status. It has serious population issues it needs to fix as well as natural resources, unless they switch from communism to democracy, their place in da world will always be 2nd best.

TW/China.

Why TW shouldn't declare independence?

Because than China would attack it and cause problems...any other reasons?

Why should TW join China?

honestly, can anyone give a reason why TW should join China? Is it so they can lose their democracy, their MUCH higher standard of living, their higher standard of human rights, their economy?

TW will not declare independence, the ppl are so frigging poor they are more concerned about educating their kids and putting food on da table than fighting a costly war they don't kare about, they don't kare about being independent, but they can't join the current administration based in Beiking. However, they cannot afford to join China. 1 Billion ppl would suddently be competing with them for the job market, as well as drain their social security and health insurance services. Plus they would be pouring federal tax dollars to Beijing instead of into their island's services.

The standards of living in TW is low, but in China there IS NO standard of living, ppl are just plain poor. They will starve and die from lack of food COMMONLY. There is a reason ppl are working in sweat jobs in factories making nike shoes for $1/month. There is some truth in stereotypes..

Don;t believe what you see on t.v. of modern Chinese middle class living it up in Beijing and Shanghai, these are only a handful of cities in a country with 1 billion ppl. Where do the ppl who aren't living in da city in da nice nieghbourhoods go? they aint eating pizzas at pizzahut and listening to american rap. they working in a farm in the country living in a hut.

[Sgt_Strider]

I suggest you go back and read that one more time.

Here I copy and paste the 2nd and third paragraph

This particular myth probably was started due to two reasons. First, in 1997 Iraq did expel American weapons inspectors claiming they were spies. Second, many news reports of the 1998 withdrawal contained vague language like "UN weapons inspectors today were ordered out of Iraq" which was probably misunderstood by reporters later as implying that the orders to leave the country came from Iraq rather than UNSCOM (though, there's not much excuse for such sloppiness).

The withdrawal, however, was clearly Iraq's fault. Beginning in July 1998, Iraq actively interfered with the weapons inspectors. At various points it refused to allow them to videotape inspections, refused to allow inspectors to photocopy incriminating documents they uncovered, and blocked access to facilities that weapons inspectors had every right to enter.

Look harder cuz clearly you're wasting my time and yours. Your anti-US sentiment is obviously blinding you. I'm starting to question where did you graduate from or maybe you didn't? But if it's from Bovine university, I can understand...

[Sgt_Strider]

They didn't cooperate, that isn't the same as being ordered out. Israel has never cooperated nor allowed UN inspections, why not invade and bomb Israel then?




You first.




No, no chance of me joining with the Americans.

Israel didn't use chemical weapons against their neighbour. Israel doesn't have the intent to wipe out the Middle Eastern nations.

[Sgt_Strider]

IOW, one mans "terrorist" is anothers "freedom fighter". Already pointed that out, but you're not following the bouncing ball.

You are hillarious. If you don't closely read my post above, then you shouldn't post anymore. Your ignorance is blinding you. Go have a drink, smoke a cigarette, do something so that your mind is clear.

[hagbard]

Israel didn't use chemical weapons against their neighbour. Israel doesn't have the intent to wipe out the Middle Eastern nations.

Its pretty well known that the IDF has used chemical weapons against Palestinians, and I also question why they'd have such a buildup of so-called WMD if they don't intend to make use of them, either directly or as the threat. Your turn Propaganda Minister.

[hagbard]

I suggest you go back and read that one more time.

Here I copy and paste the 2nd and third paragraph

This particular myth probably was started due to two reasons. First, in 1997 Iraq did expel American weapons inspectors claiming they were spies. Second, many news reports of the 1998 withdrawal contained vague language like "UN weapons inspectors today were ordered out of Iraq" which was probably misunderstood by reporters later as implying that the orders to leave the country came from Iraq rather than UNSCOM (though, there's not much excuse for such sloppiness).

The withdrawal, however, was clearly Iraq's fault. Beginning in July 1998, Iraq actively interfered with the weapons inspectors. At various points it refused to allow them to videotape inspections, refused to allow inspectors to photocopy incriminating documents they uncovered, and blocked access to facilities that weapons inspectors had every right to enter.

The fact remains, the last time the UN left, it was their choice. Even Scott Ritter now says they had all the evidence they needed that Iraq had no active weapons program. The discussion in reponse to a "Iraq ordered them out", they didn't. Why do you continue to beat the dead horse?

Look harder cuz clearly you're wasting my time and yours. Your anti-US sentiment is obviously blinding you. I'm starting to question where did you graduate from or maybe you didn't? But if it's from Bovine university, I can understand...

You're clearly wasting my time, I don't know how any sane person can continue to defend the US invasion based on this line of argument (ie: WMD) now that they've been outted as complete liars.

[Sgt_Strider]

Its pretty well known that the IDF has used chemical weapons against Palestinians, and I also question why they'd have such a buildup of so-called WMD if they don't intend to make use of them, either directly or as the threat. Your turn Propaganda Minister.

The reason why Israel have nuclear weapons or any other WMD's, although no confirmed by the UN, is because all other Arab countries want to destroy the Jewish state. Only Egypt has accepted the existence of Israel while the others continue a policy of destroying it when they have a chance in the future. Obviously Israel would need some sort of protection although I'm not saying that they should have WMD's.

I am not creating propaganda for the Americans. I'm only stating the truth which you continually refuse to accept. You're continuing to believe in lies facilitated by the anti-American public.

Provide some proof that the Israeli's used chemical weapons against the Palestinian. Otherwise you're providing false information and I can see why I'm right and that you're from Bovine university.

[hagbard]

I am not creating propaganda for the Americans. I'm only stating the truth which you continually refuse to accept. You're continuing to believe in lies facilitated by the anti-American public.

Provide some proof that the Israeli's used chemical weapons against the Palestinian. Otherwise you're providing false information and I can see why I'm right and that you're from Bovine university.

This is absolutely the last time I'm discussing anything with you. All you need to do is Google "Israel + chemical weapons + Palestinians" to find plenty of material. such as:

http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview.htm

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/August/6%20n/Israel's%20Use%20of%20Chemical%20Weapons.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/brooks07062004.html

or the US using depleted uranium in Iraq since the first Gulf War. Again, run your own search.

[Sgt_Strider]

The fact remains, the last time the UN left, it was their choice. Even Scott Ritter now says they had all the evidence they needed that Iraq had no active weapons program. The discussion in reponse to a "Iraq ordered them out", they didn't. Why do you continue to beat the dead horse?



You're clearly wasting my time, I don't know how any sane person can continue to defend the US invasion based on this line of argument (ie: WMD) now that they've been outted as complete liars.

Are you even reading what I highlighted? Here I'll copy and paste this sentence for you:

"First, in 1997 Iraq did expel American weapons inspectors claiming they were spies."

Either you're stupid or you're intentionally ignoring the facts.

No one knew if the Iraqis had cleared their batch of WMD's since they never finished their job. Don't tell me this BS that the world was right from the beginning that Iraq never had WMD's. No one would have knew if the US didn't remove Saddam from power. It was him that was the main obstacle to the whole inspection. If he had cooperated from day 1, he would still be in power today and a war would have avoided. Then again we would have denied the Iraqi their chance to liberty and democracy.

Obviously you wouldn't care because you could careless of other people in this world.

Quit wasting my time and or other people's time if you're not going to accept the facts and post something useful. If and when you prove me wrong, I'll admit it and congratulate you. At this point in time, you haven't and all the evidence that we provided say you're wrong.

[Sgt_Strider]

This is absolutely the last time I'm discussing anything with you. All you need to do is Google "Israel + chemical weapons + Palestinians" to find plenty of material. such as:

http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview.htm

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/August/6%20n/Israel's%20Use%20of%20Chemical%20Weapons.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/brooks07062004.html

or the US using depleted uranium in Iraq since the first Gulf War. Again, run your own search.

If you're that immature and just leave then fine by me. I will continue to post facts here while correcting all of the lies that you have created except for "Israel using WMD's". I will get back to you tomorrow on that issue, but AFAIK, that's nothing but another urban legend. AFAIK, Israel have never used chemical weapons against the Palestinian. It would have been taught in the history courses in university, but I'll double check with my professor. I don't believe those sites that you listed. The reason is that the Palestinians is known to over exaggerate Israeli activity and make up lies. Remember that whole "Jenin Massacre" that the Palestinian authorities made big headlines on? Well it all turned out to be one big lie and the UN said no such genocide occurred. Here's a link for you to read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-cohen041602.asp

Depleted Uranium is used in their ammunition and that doesn't constitute as being WMD's. It seems to me that you lack the understanding of what WMD's is.

Here's a BBC article that doesn't state anything about Israel using chemical or biological weapons. Although it states that it is generally thought that Israel possesses them, it has never been recorded that they have used it.

[hagbard]

Are you even reading what I highlighted? Here I'll copy and paste this sentence for you:

"First, in 1997 Iraq did expel American weapons inspectors claiming they were spies."

Either you're stupid or you're intentionally ignoring the facts.

Just how thick is your head? They went back in '98, and left of their own accord. The fact remains, they stayed out of Iraq by their own choice from 1998 till they were once again told to leave by the UN in 2003.

No one knew if the Iraqis had cleared their batch of WMD's since they never finished their job. Don't tell me this BS that the world was right from the beginning that Iraq never had WMD's. No one would have knew if the US didn't remove Saddam from power.

There was little evidience that Iraq still had WMD (most of which were provided by the US, btw) and plenty to suggest they didn't. Even if they did, it was a pretty stupid reason for the invasion, for if that is the grounds, then again, I ask why not also invade Israel, which is known to have a rather large supply of nuclear and chemical weapons?

It was him that was the main obstacle to the whole inspection. If he had cooperated from day 1, he would still be in power today and a war would have avoided. Then again we would have denied the Iraqi their chance to liberty and democracy.

Liberty and democracy my ass. They live under occupation. The US will never let Iraq have democratic (let alone a republican form) of government. To do so would place the "Ayatollah's" in charge. Now, had they stayed out of Iraq and Iran in the 1950s & 60s, there may have been hope, but instead, the CIA worked its magic and installed both the Shah in Iran and Saddam in Iraq.

Obviously you wouldn't care because you could careless of other people in this world.

Talking to the mirror?

Quit wasting my time and or other people's time if you're not going to accept the facts and post something useful.

I see, "Facts" = "what I say they are". Figured.

If and when you prove me wrong, I'll admit it and congratulate you.

No you won't, authoritarians never do.

At this point in time, you haven't and all the evidence that we provided say you're wrong.

In your own mind.

[aquariaguy]

Both of you are funny. :arrow: :arrowl: :arrow: :arrowl: :arrow: :arrowl:

[Sgt_Strider]

Just how thick is your head? They went back in '98, and left of their own accord. The fact remains, they stayed out of Iraq by their own choice from 1998 till they were once again told to leave by the UN in 2003.



There was little evidience that Iraq still had WMD (most of which were provided by the US, btw) and plenty to suggest they didn't. Even if they did, it was a pretty stupid reason for the invasion, for if that is the grounds, then again, I ask why not also invade Israel, which is known to have a rather large supply of nuclear and chemical weapons?



Liberty and democracy my ass. They live under occupation. The US will never let Iraq have democratic (let alone a republican form) of government. To do so would place the "Ayatollah's" in charge. Now, had they stayed out of Iraq and Iran in the 1950s & 60s, there may have been hope, but instead, the CIA worked its magic and installed both the Shah in Iran and Saddam in Iraq.



Talking to the mirror?



I see, "Facts" = "what I say they are". Figured.



No you won't, authoritarians never do.



In your own mind.

Your head is at least couple of inches thicker than me. So thick that I may have only penetrate only an inch. If you think a little harder then we wouldn't be going back and forth on this topic.

Iraq showed the will that it'll use WMD's against anyone while Israel hasn't. Obviously if you were smarter, you would have notice the distinction between those two countries.

Please show some intelligence when you type up your posts. Democracy takes time to take root. You cannot expect democracy to grow in such a short period of time (3 years). It took Germany decades to accept democracy.

The US must occupy the country because security has not been stabilized. If they leave now, the insurgents will take over the country and civil war will erupt. The US should leave Iraq, but the fact if they leave now, all their efforts in the last 3 years would have been wasted.

You wouldn't understand anything that I say if you're going to ignore them and accept nothing but lies as the truth.

[hot_potato]

You're clearly wasting my time, I don't know how any sane person can continue to defend the US invasion based on this line of argument (ie: WMD) now that they've been outted as complete liars.

I believe they have changed their tune to "spreading the seeds of democracy in the middle east".. I very much doubt the American public would have endorsed a war based on this objective. Advocating the threat of Saddam using WMD's would be more pallatable to the argument of waging war on Iraq.

[eelfliw]

It seems to me that you're selecting what you want to read in my post. I already said I cannot read chinese. Western media are not biased toward the situation.
How do you know western media reports aren't biased if you've never read local Chinese media reports??? That's like saying the color green is really red because you've never seen what red looks like.

[b166er1337]

How do you know western media reports aren't biased if you've never read local Chinese media reports??? That's like saying the color green is really red because you've never seen what red looks like.

different western media have different opinions toward matters concerning China. However, there is only one type of opinion form local newspapers in China.

Out of those two, i choose to believe the one that has variations.

[eelfliw]

It's funny how you make such a statement that can only be applied to you. I suggest you attend some university classes before you make such an accusation that can only be referred to you.

You cannot claim that you have won this debate nor know more than me when you don't even provide any evidence to support your claim that the Taiwanese cannot defend themselves against a Chinese attack or the Chinese lacking the will to invade. If you were to do that in university, you would have failed long before you would even see your B.A.
Oh.... resorting to denial and accusation again.... Do you have another debate technique to use besides this old trick?

You are clearly outclassed, outwitted, and outmaneuvered. You are simply asking questions that are considered common sense in this area because you've never really understood anything about the Chinese culture in China & TW.

We are no longer discussing the issue of China vs TW. Instead, we are discussing your lack of understanding of the issues at play. Even the most hardcore pro-independence supporters don't deny the fact that TW does not have a chance against China and TW government is quickly losing international support because of its chosen course. If these simple facts are news to you, don't even bother engage in this debate.

[eelfliw]

All the Chinese media in overseas are run by the same headquarters back in China, HK or TW. Again, they will infuse their own political agendas into every political news no matter where they publish the newspaper.
Very true. That's why it's important to read a cross section of the different medias available in order to get a picture of what's really happening.

This is true even for Canadian news. Reading the National Post alone won't give you a clear picture of what really happened. And reading the Toronto Star alone won't either.

[eelfliw]

Ok, so tell what your opinion is regarding WMD in Iraq before the American invasion 2 years ago .

Do you believe that Saddam is hiding something because he consistently harrassing UN weapon inspectors and finally kick them out?
This is off topic in this thread.

Why don't you start another thread with this question and I'll post there. Also, in the interest of fairness to other members of this forum, the question should be asked of all members.

[eelfliw]

Especially considering if there was such a news source (and I'd be surprised if there weren't any Chinese lanaguage newspapers in Canada.. given the large asian population).. it'd be blocked by the Chinese government (at least, over the Internet).
There is no single news source that can be 100% accurate and fair on everything. What makes you think only the truthful news source gets blocked? The untruthful news also gets blocked.

Is it true that China threatened to invade if Taiwan even held a referendum on the subject (I recall hearing that.. but it's not something I follow especially closely..)?
China has recently passed an anti-succession law. I have read the Chinese version of the law. Don't know if there are English versions available. But recommend you to find it and read it to make your own opinions. The "China threaten to invade" part is a lot of fear-mongering, IMHO, by those playing political games for their own gains. And my opinion is formed after reading that law. But you should form your own opinions after reading the law.

[eelfliw]

different western media have different opinions toward matters concerning China. However, there is only one type of opinion form local newspapers in China.

Out of those two, i choose to believe the one that has variations.
How many local Chinese newspapers have you read?

Look, I don't know if you can read Chinese. If not, then I'm not making fun of the fact that you can't read Chinese. If you've never read local Chinese newspaper, how do you know there is only one type of opinion?

All I can say is, that assumption is very wrong. When's the last time you've been to China? There's a lot more freedom than the western media would like to portray.

[d_jedi]

There is no single news source that can be 100% accurate and fair on everything. What makes you think only the truthful news source gets blocked? The untruthful news also gets blocked.
What I'm saying is the news sources that don't tow the official communist party line are generally banned.

China has recently passed an anti-succession law. I have read the Chinese version of the law. Don't know if there are English versions available. But recommend you to find it and read it to make your own opinions. The "China threaten to invade" part is a lot of fear-mongering, IMHO, by those playing political games for their own gains. And my opinion is formed after reading that law. But you should form your own opinions after reading the law.
I have not read the law, but let me see if I understand correctly. Essentially, the law gives the Chinese government the right (and even the obligation) to intervene militarily if a province attempts to secede.. is that correct?

[Sgt_Strider]

Oh.... resorting to denial and accusation again.... Do you have another debate technique to use besides this old trick?

You are clearly outclassed, outwitted, and outmaneuvered. You are simply asking questions that are considered common sense in this area because you've never really understood anything about the Chinese culture in China & TW.

We are no longer discussing the issue of China vs TW. Instead, we are discussing your lack of understanding of the issues at play. Even the most hardcore pro-independence supporters don't deny the fact that TW does not have a chance against China and TW government is quickly losing international support because of its chosen course. If these simple facts are news to you, don't even bother engage in this debate.

All you're doing is making the same old rhetoric over and over again. You automatically assumed that you're the master of this topic. You made many unsubstantiated statements and automatically say I'm wrong. It's amazing how someone like you claim that you're so intelligent can make so many mistakes. Without providing any proof to support your claim, you cannot dismiss my statements. It really makes me wonder whether you went to school.

Either you put up or shut up. Stop making false accusations.

[Sgt_Strider]

What I'm saying is the news sources that don't tow the official communist party line are generally banned.


I have not read the law, but let me see if I understand correctly. Essentially, the law gives the Chinese government the right (and even the obligation) to intervene militarily if a province attempts to secede.. is that correct?

Anything that doesn't satisfy the communist party is usually not publish. There is no such thing as freedom of the press in China. Anyone that says so is kidding themself as that is nothing but BS.

The law itself is rather provacative. If I remember correctly, CNN mentions the law doesn't explicity states that China have to use the military as the only option to force Taiwan to reunify. They can impose economic sanctions as well.

[hagbard]

Your head is at least couple of inches thicker than me. So thick that I may have only penetrate only an inch. If you think a little harder then we wouldn't be going back and forth on this topic.

Iraq showed the will that it'll use WMD's against anyone while Israel hasn't. Obviously if you were smarter, you would have notice the distinction between those two countries.

Example?

Please show some intelligence when you type up your posts. Democracy takes time to take root. You cannot expect democracy to grow in such a short period of time (3 years). It took Germany decades to accept democracy.

Proving once again how clueless you are. Germany was democratic right up until Hitler pushed through the Enabling Act in 1933. They have a longer history of democratic gov't than does Iraq, and is a more homogenous society which makes such a gov't much more likely to succeed. Iraq will not have a democratic gov't as we consider "democratic" for years to come, and curtainly not with the "help" they're getting from the Americans.

The US must occupy the country because security has not been stabilized.

The country was "stable" before the US invaded, even given the punishing sanctions imposed under US pressure on the UN.

If they leave now, the insurgents will take over the country and civil war will erupt. The US should leave Iraq, but the fact if they leave now, all their efforts in the last 3 years would have been wasted.

Certainly, this is true, but what is also true is that the US created these conditions in the first place. They owe Iraq a great deal, they can start by holding War Crimes trials on those who invaded their country. I'd love to see Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld dangle at the end of a rope.

You wouldn't understand anything that I say if you're going to ignore them and accept nothing but lies as the truth.

Don't your lips get sore kissin' that American butt so hard?


Now, bringing thngs a bit more on topic, the US is ultimately going to loose. They are going to loose in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, they're going to loose whatever trade advantages they have left, they are going to loose their influence on the rest of the developed world, they are certainly going to loose what liberty they have in their own country, and are well on their way to becoming a third world nation. China is going to become the dominant force of the 21st century, like it or not (I don't particularly like it, but we can thank the Americans for this too).

[grant]

All I can say is, that assumption is very wrong. When's the last time you've been to China? There's a lot more freedom than the western media would like to portray.

I think a lot of people are stuck with the images (my self included) of tanks rolling towards protestors in tianeman square (vs. riot police & tear gas rolling towards canadian protestors)

[Roninvancouver]

How do you know western media reports aren't biased if you've never read local Chinese media reports??? That's like saying the color green is really red because you've never seen what red looks like.


China - a fun place. Just don't disagree with the gov't. I figure China must be very scary place since even the Chinese in Canada are too afraid to openly speak against the atrocities over there. I think you may be living a little sheltered life if you thing the PRC is just a friendly misunderstood panda.

Is there even a word in mandarin for Human Rights?

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

but hey, since we can get cheap imports to buy at Wal-Mart...it makes it okay...


http://www.falunau.org/newsArticle.jsp?itemID=1233&cat=newsAus

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2004-4-24-melbourne-3.jpg

[Sgt_Strider]

Example?



Proving once again how clueless you are. Germany was democratic right up until Hitler pushed through the Enabling Act in 1933. They have a longer history of democratic gov't than does Iraq, and is a more homogenous society which makes such a gov't much more likely to succeed. Iraq will not have a democratic gov't as we consider "democratic" for years to come, and curtainly not with the "help" they're getting from the Americans.



The country was "stable" before the US invaded, even given the punishing sanctions imposed under US pressure on the UN.



Certainly, this is true, but what is also true is that the US created these conditions in the first place. They owe Iraq a great deal, they can start by holding War Crimes trials on those who invaded their country. I'd love to see Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld dangle at the end of a rope.



Don't your lips get sore kissin' that American butt so hard?


Now, bringing thngs a bit more on topic, the US is ultimately going to loose. They are going to loose in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, they're going to loose whatever trade advantages they have left, they are going to loose their influence on the rest of the developed world, they are certainly going to loose what liberty they have in their own country, and are well on their way to becoming a third world nation. China is going to become the dominant force of the 21st century, like it or not (I don't particularly like it, but we can thank the Americans for this too).

You're doing nothing but showing your stupidity. Perhaps I didn't go into details about Germany in the first place. Democracy was NEVER strong in Germany prior to the end of World War 2. Germany never experienced democracy before and transitioning from an authoritarian government to a proportional represntation is a big step. If you studied your history, you would know that there were constant political gridlock and no party achieved a majority. Only when Hitler managed to get a majority illegally, which I won't explain how because you'll need to figure that out, did he used democracy to destroy democracy. Even after the post world war 2 period, most Germans were still not very acceptant towards democracy. There was a study done and it took until the 1980's/90's did most Germans accepted democracy like their fellow European counterparts.

Depends on your definition of stable, Iraq to me was far from being considered stable. I rather see Saddam executed first and then try you for ignorance before condemning Bush.

The reason why you're constantly posting BS is because of the influence by the general anti-american public. It is those reasons that are causing trade issues between both countries. Your ignorance and lack of intelligence is misguiding you. It's pathetic of you to keep on saying I suck up to the Americans when I'm stating logical statements. You are this generation's Nevill Chamberlain whether you like it or not. A world ruled by people with the kind of mindset that you possess can never maintain peace.

[Sgt_Strider]

China - a fun place. Just don't disagree with the gov't. I figure China must be very scary place since even the Chinese in Canada are too afraid to openly speak against the atrocities over there. I think you may be living a little sheltered life if you thing the PRC is just a friendly misunderstood panda.

Is there even a word in mandarin for Human Rights?

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

but hey, since we can get cheap imports to buy at Wal-Mart...it makes it okay...


http://www.falunau.org/newsArticle.jsp?itemID=1233&cat=newsAus

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2004-4-24-melbourne-3.jpg

He is a very confused individual. He must have been brainwashed somewhere in China. He makes countless false accusations against me, just like his fellow communist buddies. Shows how good the chinese education system really is.

[hagbard]

You're doing nothing but showing your stupidity. Perhaps I didn't go into details about Germany in the first place. Democracy was NEVER strong in Germany prior to the end of World War 2. Germany never experienced democracy before and transitioning from an authoritarian government to a proportional represntation is a big step. If you studied your history, you would know that there were constant political gridlock and no party achieved a majority. Only when Hitler managed to get a majority illegally, which I won't explain how because you'll need to figure that out, did he used democracy to destroy democracy. Even after the post world war 2 period, most Germans were still not very acceptant towards democracy. There was a study done and it took until the 1980's/90's did most Germans accepted democracy like their fellow European counterparts.

You just getting this shyt off the top of your hat? BTW, I said that Germany had democratic government prior to the Enabling Act of 1933, I didn't say they were strongly democratic, learn the difference. Also learn that there are more forms of "democratic government" than that of the US (which technically isn't a democracy but a republic).

Depends on your definition of stable, Iraq to me was far from being considered stable.

Compared with what the US has made of it since, it was stable.

I rather see Saddam executed first and then try you for ignorance before condemning Bush.

Dude, move your ass (back to) the States where it belongs, or join the US military and go to Iraq since you love what they're doing there so much.

The reason why you're constantly posting BS is because of the influence by the general anti-american public. It is those reasons that are causing trade issues between both countries.

Because that's the American way, if you don't co-operate, we'll make you pay. The "anti-American public" are completely correct in regards to US Imperial aims and American hypocrisy. Being one yourself, you can't see it.

Your ignorance and lack of intelligence is misguiding you. It's pathetic of you to keep on saying I suck up to the Americans when I'm stating logical statements.

Like this one? :arrowu:

You are this generation's Nevill Chamberlain whether you like it or not. A world ruled by people with the kind of mindset that you possess can never maintain peace.

Again, what I would expect from a young authoritarian like yourself.

You have now earned your place in my Kill Filter, one of only two others. Congrats and goodbye.

[Sgt_Strider]

You just getting this shyt off the top of your hat? BTW, I said that Germany had democratic government prior to the Enabling Act of 1933, I didn't say they were strongly democratic, learn the difference. Also learn that there are more forms of "democratic government" than that of the US (which technically isn't a democracy but a republic).



Compared with what the US has made of it since, it was stable.



Dude, move your ass (back to) the States where it belongs, or join the US military and go to Iraq since you love what they're doing there so much.



Because that's the American way, if you don't co-operate, we'll make you pay. The "anti-American public" are completely correct in regards to US Imperial aims and American hypocrisy. Being one yourself, you can't see it.



Like this one? :arrowu:



Again, what I would expect from a young authoritarian like yourself.

You have now earned your place in my Kill Filter, one of only two others. Congrats and goodbye.

If you were intelligent enough, you would have realized that I was trying to compare the situation in Germany then and Iraq now.

Pathetic statement coming from a pathetic individual. I love my country and I'm sick and tired of immature individuals like you trying to ruin relations with our "best friend". We can disagree, but the fact that we're personally attacking them doesn't make you any better. To me you're nothing but a Carolyn Parrish.

Whatever "chamberlain", I support the notion that freedom and democracy is something that's entitled to the people of this world. Obviously you don't share the same opinion as me.

Your lack of intelligence is continuing to misguide you and I'm not surprised. If you decide to block me simply because you cannot see the difference between fact and fiction, that's fine with me. I could care less with what you do.

[hagbard]

Huh??? What??? Sorry, can't hear you! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Sgt_Strider]

Huh??? What??? Sorry, can't hear you! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And yet you respond to it? This guy is the biggest joke I've ever seen. For someone that doesn't want to continue responding to me is still responding to me. lol...what a ******.

[devious9191]

lol...what a ******.

word.

[hagbard]

word.

No doubt, he was talking about himself.

Here is a good article regarding those "democratic" elections in Iraq, by Scott Ritter:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21566/

[eelfliw]

What I'm saying is the news sources that don't tow the official communist party line are generally banned.
Major misconception. The "official" media is a mouth piece for the CCP. But, in a country of 1.3 billion ppl, you'd think there is more than 1 media source, right? Not all media praise the CCP.

I have not read the law, but let me see if I understand correctly. Essentially, the law gives the Chinese government the right (and even the obligation) to intervene militarily if a province attempts to secede.. is that correct?
How can you understand something that's written without even seeing it? If I tell you what the law is, then it is tainted with my opinion. I suggest you see it for yourself and not rely on second hand info.

[eelfliw]

All you're doing is making the same old rhetoric over and over again. You automatically assumed that you're the master of this topic. You made many unsubstantiated statements and automatically say I'm wrong. It's amazing how someone like you claim that you're so intelligent can make so many mistakes. Without providing any proof to support your claim, you cannot dismiss my statements. It really makes me wonder whether you went to school.

Either you put up or shut up. Stop making false accusations.
When compared to you, I AM the master of this topic. My statements seem unsubstantiated to you because you have very little knowledge of the subject matter and what little knowledge you have, you heard it from only western sources, which you trust to be neutral and correct. Well, the bad news is, the western media isn't completely neutral and correct. Their omissions go unnoticed because many don't bother to correct or simply don't read. I'm not saying all western media is wrong. I'm saying some are. And you wouldn't have the knowledge to know if they're right or wrong if you don't compare their reports to reports from local sources.

I don't need to substantiate anything I say to you. You will know in time if you bother to find out. Trying to explain all this to you would be like trying to explain to a 2 year old that Santa doesn't really exist. But the 2 year old won't believe me because he just sat on Santa's lap just yesterday. Talk to me when you've matured. I've dismissed everything you've said.

What does my school have anything to do with this? Why are you even bringing up school in this topic? Are you in school too? What grade? Who's your teacher? I'm gonna tell on ya....

[devious9191]

No doubt, he was talking about himself.

Here is a good article regarding those "democratic" elections in Iraq, by Scott Ritter:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21566/

I'm not sure I understand your point. The article quotes 'Well-placed sources in Iraq who were in a position to know', that say that the results of the election were fraudulent. So what?

How can you argue that it isn't in the best interest of Iraq to seperate church from state? I'm sure most of the women that receive beatings there on a daily basis according to sharia law would disagree with you.

[hagbard]

eelfliw - Don't waste your time with Sgt_Strider, he obviously has all the answers and no amount of evidence or logical discussion will reach him. Instead, he'll question your intelligence for not bowing before his superior wisdom. I should have dropped out the minute he started with the ad hominem.

[Sgt_Strider]

No doubt, he was talking about himself.

Here is a good article regarding those "democratic" elections in Iraq, by Scott Ritter:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21566/

What you say contains nothing but irony. You misunderstand every single of my posts. Obviously there are no WMD's in Iraq because it was no proven. Read every single one of my posts if you want to know the hidden metaphors and or information.

You are the biggest joke I have ever seen. For someone that no longer wants to respond to my post still does it. It shows how low you really are.

[Sgt_Strider]

When compared to you, I AM the master of this topic. My statements seem unsubstantiated to you because you have very little knowledge of the subject matter and what little knowledge you have, you heard it from only western sources, which you trust to be neutral and correct. Well, the bad news is, the western media isn't completely neutral and correct. Their omissions go unnoticed because many don't bother to correct or simply don't read. I'm not saying all western media is wrong. I'm saying some are. And you wouldn't have the knowledge to know if they're right or wrong if you don't compare their reports to reports from local sources.

I don't need to substantiate anything I say to you. You will know in time if you bother to find out. Trying to explain all this to you would be like trying to explain to a 2 year old that Santa doesn't really exist. But the 2 year old won't believe me because he just sat on Santa's lap just yesterday. Talk to me when you've matured. I've dismissed everything you've said.

What does my school have anything to do with this? Why are you even bringing up school in this topic? Are you in school too? What grade? Who's your teacher? I'm gonna tell on ya....

That's the biggest crap you can toss on to anyone. If you were to be in any kind of academic debate you would prove your information. I have provided proof in some of my posts and some are obvious information. You have provided none and instead maintain your superiority in this topic. You're the biggest fraud I have seen. You would not pass any university courses. Your arrogance is your downfall.

Your comparison with a 2 year old and Santa is not valid. Without providing any proof, you could simply be lieing and your posts are not objective like you claim. In fact it's the opposite.

Let me know when you're serious about debating and trying to prove someone wrong. At this point you haven't and in fact you're embarassing yourself.

[Sgt_Strider]

Don't waste your time with Sgt_Strider, he obviously has all the answers and no amount of evidence or logical discussion will reach him. Instead, he'll question your intelligence for not bowing before his superior wisdom. I should have dropped out the minute he started with the ad hominem.

You provided none that prove your point. Again what you post proved nothing. You have made no victory nor proven anyone wrong. Your anti-Americanism is misguiding you. You're looking at everything from a small picture, while I am looking from a bigger picture.

If you have something intelligent to say then say it. Otherwise then just shut up.

[hagbard]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The article quotes 'Well-placed sources in Iraq who were in a position to know', that say that the results of the election were fraudulent. So what?

How can you argue that it isn't in the best interest of Iraq to seperate church from state? I'm sure most of the women that receive beatings there on a daily basis according to sharia law would disagree with you.

I believe it is none of the United States government's business who another country chooses as their leaders, or how they decide to choose their leaders. Who died and appointed the US as the world's Moral Crusaders?

Before the US came into that country (circa 1991), Iraq was considered the most westernized of middle east countries, now look where its going. You're right though, a theocracy is the likely result of a democratic election. I do believe, however, that given time, if persuasion & example rather than force is used, they will move in a more "liberal" direction. That was certainly the case with Iran until the US decided to pick another fight with them. It was also historically the case between WWII and the mid-1950s. I'm sure our resident expert will contest this "fact", but all you have to do is search out the histories of Iran in Iraq during the early 1950s to see the direction they were going. The US didn't like that direction, because they were not anti-communist enough for them and worked using the CIA to install both the Shah and Saddam into power.

BTW, I agree with those who say this should be a discussion on China, not the middle-east, so I've started another thread.

[eelfliw]

I think a lot of people are stuck with the images (my self included) of tanks rolling towards protestors in tianeman square (vs. riot police & tear gas rolling towards canadian protestors)
True. People forget good news quickly but remember bad news forever.

[eelfliw]

China - a fun place. Just don't disagree with the gov't. I figure China must be very scary place since even the Chinese in Canada are too afraid to openly speak against the atrocities over there. I think you may be living a little sheltered life if you thing the PRC is just a friendly misunderstood panda.

Is there even a word in mandarin for Human Rights?

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

but hey, since we can get cheap imports to buy at Wal-Mart...it makes it okay...

http://www.falunau.org/newsArticle.jsp?itemID=1233&cat=newsAus

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2004-4-24-melbourne-3.jpg

Funny that you say people dare not speak up against the government in China. Yet the staged picture you posted and the falungong web site link you posted are both speaking out against the government.

These are excellent examples of the point I'm trying to make in posts above. Some people feel that any and all opposition is crushed instantly. But the facts show that opposition is alive and well.

[TenzoR]

whatever happen will happen

i forsee a nice nuclear battle between the US and China

it only takes a couple and the whole world is affected

[Sgt_Strider]

Funny that you say people dare not speak up against the government in China. Yet the staged picture you posted and the falungong web site link you posted are both speaking out against the government.

These are excellent examples of the point I'm trying to make in posts above. Some people feel that any and all opposition is crushed instantly. But the facts show that opposition is alive and well.

This is a minority. If you have read reports, falun gong supporters are often discriminated against. China's human rights records is improving, but to say this one picture proves that they don't crack down on dissidents is wrong.

[eelfliw]

That's the biggest crap you can toss on to anyone. If you were to be in any kind of academic debate you would prove your information. I have provided proof in some of my posts and some are obvious information. You have provided none and instead maintain your superiority in this topic. You're the biggest fraud I have seen. You would not pass any university courses. Your arrogance is your downfall.

Your comparison with a 2 year old and Santa is not valid. Without providing any proof, you could simply be lieing and your posts are not objective like you claim. In fact it's the opposite.

Let me know when you're serious about debating and trying to prove someone wrong. At this point you haven't and in fact you're embarassing yourself.
Your rather pathetic point that there is no weapons inspector in Iraq prior to the US invasion was very quickly and decisively tossed back in your face. :cheesygri I had a really good laugh about that. Saddam had allowed them back into Iraq in 2002 in vain to avoid the invasion. Somehow, you were ignorant of that and made my day. :cheesygri :D :cheesygri :D :cheesygri :D

So... in a desperate attempt to save face, you start to deny anything I say because you've failed to find proof and accuse me of being arrogant and fraud.

Well, an adult would seem arrogant to a two year old because they seem SO smart compared to a child. And 10^2 = 100 would seem impossible to a two year old child too. I can understand where you are coming from. You're asking proof because comprehension needs more brain power than you possess. And if you don't understand, you just resort to insults, predictions (that I wouldn't pass any university courses), and flat denial.

If your debating skills is really limited to denials and curses, I'm afraid you've already lost. There's no use denying common knowledge. You can deny the fact that you are aware of it. But you can't deny that it'd occured.

So, go ahead. Deny any and everything I say. You are just making your own sphere of knowledge and awareness smaller and smaller. I'm watching as you implode into nothingness. Sigh. Kids these days. If you haven't heard of it then it doesn't exist, right?

[d_jedi]

Funny that you say people dare not speak up against the government in China. Yet the staged picture you posted and the falungong web site link you posted are both speaking out against the government.

These are excellent examples of the point I'm trying to make in posts above. Some people feel that any and all opposition is crushed instantly. But the facts show that opposition is alive and well.

I believe that protest (where the pics come from) actually took place in Australia..

[d_jedi]

Before the US came into that country (circa 1991), Iraq was considered the most westernized of middle east countries, now look where its going.

Uhm. Don't you think Saddam Hussein is to blame for that one? Something about invading Kuwait. I dunno.. maybe that was just American propoganda. There were no Iraqi forces in Kuwait.. just as there were no Americans in Baghdad. :cheesygri

[eelfliw]

This is a minority. If you have read reports, falun gong supporters are often discriminated against. China's human rights records is improving, but to say this one picture proves that they don't crack down on dissidents is wrong.
In a country of 1.3 billion people, pretty much anything is minority. The entire population of the North American continent can only count as minority in China.

Who said "this one picture proves that they don't crack down on dissidents"? I read my post above but can't see anything that implied it. Are you making up things for me?

I said that the opposition is alive and well.

[Sgt_Strider]

I believe it is none of the United States government's business who another country chooses as their leaders, or how they decide to choose their leaders. Who died and appointed the US as the world's Moral Crusaders?

Before the US came into that country (circa 1991), Iraq was considered the most westernized of middle east countries, now look where its going. You're right though, a theocracy is the likely result of a democratic election. I do believe, however, that given time, if persuasion & example rather than force is used, they will move in a more "liberal" direction. That was certainly the case with Iran until the US decided to pick another fight with them. It was also historically the case between WWII and the mid-1950s. I'm sure our resident expert will contest this "fact", but all you have to do is search out the histories of Iran in Iraq during the early 1950s to see the direction they were going. The US didn't like that direction, because they were not anti-communist enough for them and worked using the CIA to install both the Shah and Saddam into power.

BTW, I agree with those who say this should be a discussion on China, not the middle-east, so I've started another thread.

Most westernized middle eastern country? I have doubts in that.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567303_8/Iraq.html

From all indication, Iraq was in a disaster.

Saddam had a solid grip on his country before the U.S led invasion. How long did you expect him to loosen his grip and initiate political reforms? Probably not in our life time considering he place one of his sons as his successor. It's native to believe such liberalization will take place. With all that has happened, there WAS and there is still no indication any of what you claimed will happen.

[Sgt_Strider]

Your rather pathetic point that there is no weapons inspector in Iraq prior to the US invasion was very quickly and decisively tossed back in your face. :cheesygri I had a really good laugh about that. Saddam had allowed them back into Iraq in 2002 in vain to avoid the invasion. Somehow, you were ignorant of that and made my day. :cheesygri :D :cheesygri :D :cheesygri :D

So... in a desperate attempt to save face, you start to deny anything I say because you've failed to find proof and accuse me of being arrogant and fraud.

Well, an adult would seem arrogant to a two year old because they seem SO smart compared to a child. And 10^2 = 100 would seem impossible to a two year old child too. I can understand where you are coming from. You're asking proof because comprehension needs more brain power than you possess. And if you don't understand, you just resort to insults, predictions (that I wouldn't pass any university courses), and flat denial.

If your debating skills is really limited to denials and curses, I'm afraid you've already lost. There's no use denying common knowledge. You can deny the fact that you are aware of it. But you can't deny that it'd occured.

So, go ahead. Deny any and everything I say. You are just making your own sphere of knowledge and awareness smaller and smaller. I'm watching as you implode into nothingness. Sigh. Kids these days. If you haven't heard of it then it doesn't exist, right?

Like I said you either didn't go to school or you attended Bovine university. How can anyone that read your claims know that it's right and mine are wrong when you provide no proof to support them. I said this before and I'll say it again. You are the biggest fraud I have seen. When have I said there were no weapons inspector in Iraq prior to the invasion? It seems like you're making things up to deface me. Then again all you're doing is proving nothing but making things up.

Seriously you are a joke. You provide no evidence to support your claim and then go and dismiss mine. Either I'm talking to a high school kid that you're pertending to be or you are a very uneducated individual.

[Sgt_Strider]

In a country of 1.3 billion people, pretty much anything is minority. The entire population of the North American continent can only count as minority in China.

Who said "this one picture proves that they don't crack down on dissidents"? I read my post above but can't see anything that implied it. Are you making up things for me?

I said that the opposition is alive and well.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post. I'm man enough to acknowledge a mistake. Unfortunately you have not taken that position and in fact continue to live in denial for everything else.

[hagbard]

Uhm. Don't you think Saddam Hussein is to blame for that one? Something about invading Kuwait. I dunno.. maybe that was just American propoganda. There were no Iraqi forces in Kuwait.. just as there were no Americans in Baghdad. :cheesygri

Sadddam, being the good American tool he was, checked with his imperial masters before going into Kuwait, and was given the green light. You want a link for that one?

Okay, what the hell:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

BTW, there was plenty of American propaganda surrounding that invasion too, where've you been?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=804

[Sgt_Strider]

Sadddam, being the good American tool he was, checked with his imperial masters before going into Kuwait, and was given the green light. You want a link for that one?

Okay, what the hell:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

BTW, there was plenty of American propaganda surrounding that invasion too, where've you been?

LOL, I can now effectively prove that you're making things up. Your post above further proves my point that your anti-american stance is clearly misguiding you.

Read this link carefully: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567303_8/Iraq.html

The U.S never endorse the Iraqi invasion, otherwise they wouldn't joined the conflict and fought against the Iraqi's right?

lol you are a disgrace.

[i6s1]

Sadddam, being the good American tool he was, checked with his imperial masters before going into Kuwait, and was given the green light. You want a link for that one?

Okay, what the hell:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

BTW, there was plenty of American propaganda surrounding that invasion too, where've you been?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=804

The Americans said they wouldn't go do anything if Iraq attacked Kuwait. They didn't say that it was OK. There was no green light.

"We have no opinion"

Why tell Saddam to invade Kuwait and then go to war to remove Iraq?

[hot_potato]

Is there even a word in mandarin for Human Rights?

but hey, since we can get cheap imports to buy at Wal-Mart...it makes it okay...



Yup, that's good ol' corporate America hard at work. If human rights had a positive effect on the bottom line, you'd be sure to see Walmart raise a stink about it to improve their profitability. But since it doesn't, corporations won't even bat an eyelash to what happens.

[hagbard]

The Americans said they wouldn't go do anything if Iraq attacked Kuwait. They didn't say that it was OK. There was no green light.

"We have no opinion"

Did you actually read what Saddam said before this? He pretty much told him he intended to invade if he didnt' get his way. How else can you read "we have no opinion"?

Why tell Saddam to invade Kuwait and then go to war to remove Iraq?

You have to ask that question? First of all, they didn't "tell him to invade", they said they had "no opinion", this is, "you decide". He was setup. And Iraqi citizens paid the price.

[Sgt_Strider]

Did you actually read what Saddam said before this? He pretty much told him he intended to invade if he didnt' get his way. How else can you read "we have no opinion"?



You have to ask that question? First of all, they didn't "tell him to invade", they said they had "no opinion", this is, "you decide". He was setup. And Iraqi citizens paid the price.


That's the biggest load of crap I have ever heard of. The world would have criticized such US action if they did gave the green light initially. Your anti-americanism is screwing up your thinking. Get an education dude, you really need one.

[Sgt_Strider]

Yup, that's good ol' corporate America hard at work. If human rights had a positive effect on the bottom line, you'd be sure to see Walmart raise a stink about it to improve their profitability. But since it doesn't, corporations won't even bat an eyelash to what happens.

Unfortunately that's how things work in the business world. I don't blame them because that's what businesses are for...making money.

[hot_potato]

Most westernized middle eastern country? I have doubts in that.


I remember watching a CBC documentary talking about how the citizens of Iraq were highly educated compared to their brethren in the rest of the Middle East. I guess that's one benefit of having a secular (albeit authoratarian) government. If you compare the state of education in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, you will see there was a greater emphasis on religious schooling and the memorization of the Koran instead of objective, Western-style learning like in a University setting. Also, women were forbidden to go to school too. Talk about being backward! I digress - the point is that Iraq had a highly educated populace, but they were not permitted to speak out against the government.

[hot_potato]

Unfortunately that's how things work in the business world. I don't blame them because that's what businesses are for...making money.

Yeah I know, too bad for human rights..

[hot_potato]

The reason why you're constantly posting BS is because of the influence by the general anti-american public. It is those reasons that are causing trade issues between both countries.

Like it or not, those public sentiments happen to be what the majority of Canadians feel. This was the reason Jean Chretien did not join the coalition of the willing. It would have been political suicide to do so at the time because the Liberals would have been punished in the next federal election (under which they earned a minority stake). Of course, you could also argue that there was no love lost between Bush and Chretien - do you remember which country Bush made his first foreign visit to? It wasn't Ottawa, who had been the traditional favourite. Anyways, the trade disputes between the two countries has been brought before the NAFTA tribunal and time and again the Canadians have won the case, only to have the US disagree and dismiss the rulings. I'd have to say the lumber issue has been the largest problem so far. It's too bad the US housing industry doesn't have as strong a lobby as the US lumber industry. Recall also the recent talk in the BC legislature about implementing a ban on California wines to punish the US for their continued dispute on the lumber issue (which is a bigger problem for BC than any other province). I wonder what would happen if the federal government threatened to double the duties of exported oil and natural gas from Alberta. I'm sure that would rouse a few politicians from their beds in Washington! I also should mention the ongoing hubbub about mad cow and the like. Face it, every country will try to do what's best for their own interest. The US clearly does so in their trade disputes with Canada. This dispute is not caused by anti-American sentiment, but it certainly helps create anti-American sentiment. By the way, I'm not anti-American, but pro-Canadian. :lol:

[Sgt_Strider]

I remember watching a CBC documentary talking about how the citizens of Iraq were highly educated compared to their brethren in the rest of the Middle East. I guess that's one benefit of having a secular (albeit authoratarian) government. If you compare the state of education in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, you will see there was a greater emphasis on religious schooling and the memorization of the Koran instead of objective, Western-style learning like in a University setting. Also, women were forbidden to go to school too. Talk about being backward! I digress - the point is that Iraq had a highly educated populace, but they were not permitted to speak out against the government.

Prior to the invasion of Iran and Kuwait, I would believe so. After that, I'm not so sure anymore. I would imagine Qatar being richer afterwards.

[Sgt_Strider]

Like it or not, those public sentiments happen to be what the majority of Canadians feel. This was the reason Jean Chretien did not join the coalition of the willing. It would have been political suicide to do so at the time because the Liberals would have been punished in the next federal election (under which they earned a minority stake). Of course, you could also argue that there was no love lost between Bush and Chretien - do you remember which country Bush made his first foreign visit to? It wasn't Ottawa, who had been the traditional favourite. Anyways, the trade disputes between the two countries has been brought before the NAFTA tribunal and time and again the Canadians have won the case, only to have the US disagree and dismiss the rulings. I'd have to say the lumber issue has been the largest problem so far. It's too bad the US housing industry doesn't have as strong a lobby as the US lumber industry. Recall also the recent talk in the BC legislature about implementing a ban on California wines to punish the US for their continued dispute on the lumber issue (which is a bigger problem for BC than any other province). I wonder what would happen if the federal government threatened to double the duties of exported oil and natural gas from Alberta. I'm sure that would rouse a few politicians from their beds in Washington! I also should mention the ongoing hubbub about mad cow and the like. Face it, every country will try to do what's best for their own interest. The US clearly does so in their trade disputes with Canada. This dispute is not caused by anti-American sentiment, but it certainly helps create anti-American sentiment. By the way, I'm not anti-American, but pro-Canadian. :lol:

I understand that most Canadians are against the invasion of Iraq. I understand that and I do respect their opinion. However, I believe it's also fair to say alot of them are anti-american. Americans are not as bad as what some Canadians and hagbard make them seem to be. They are our most important trading partner and we have been partners for years. I understand the frustration with the way how the U.S have been harassing Canada when it comes to trade. I'm upset as well. What pisses me off even more is when you have people like hagbard making **** up and make everything the American does to be wrong, which is not true.

[bluga]

China's new toys.

Chinese "Aegis"
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c1.jpg
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c2.jpg

New subs
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c3.jpg
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c4.jpg
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c5.jpg

New fast attack boat
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c6.jpg
http://individual.utoronto.ca/izomax/c7.jpg

[eelfliw]

Like I said you either didn't go to school or you attended Bovine university. How can anyone that read your claims know that it's right and mine are wrong when you provide no proof to support them. I said this before and I'll say it again. You are the biggest fraud I have seen. When have I said there were no weapons inspector in Iraq prior to the invasion? It seems like you're making things up to deface me. Then again all you're doing is proving nothing but making things up.

Seriously you are a joke. You provide no evidence to support your claim and then go and dismiss mine. Either I'm talking to a high school kid that you're pertending to be or you are a very uneducated individual.
How does my schooling affect my side of the debate here? Prove that, professor.

I see you are progressing from denials to insult. Further sign of desperation in a losing debate. If you had any schooling, you should know when to give up the futile fight and retreat with what dignity and credibility you have left instead of going all out and making a total fool of yourself.

As for your accusation that I'm a fraud. Prove that. If I don't see proof, then you are "the biggest fraud I have seen" :lol:

You said yourself that Hussein kicked the weapons inspector out of Iraq. And when I showed that there were inspectors in 2002, you quickly changed your story. How is that fraud? Prove that.

I see you're doing a good job of digging yourself a hole and getting ready to jump in. Well, I'm willing to extend you a life line. If you apologize to me immediately, pat yourself on the head 30 times while doing a little polka dance, I will forgive you. The choice is yours.

[b166er1337]

I see you're doing a good job of digging yourself a hole and getting ready to jump in. Well, I'm willing to extend you a life line. If you apologize to me immediately, pat yourself on the head 30 times while doing a little polka dance, I will forgive you. The choice is yours.

LOL

this is from the guy who claims that he doesn't do personal attacks ;)

[Sgt_Strider]

How does my schooling affect my side of the debate here? Prove that, professor.

I see you are progressing from denials to insult. Further sign of desperation in a losing debate. If you had any schooling, you should know when to give up the futile fight and retreat with what dignity and credibility you have left instead of going all out and making a total fool of yourself.

As for your accusation that I'm a fraud. Prove that. If I don't see proof, then you are "the biggest fraud I have seen" :lol:

You said yourself that Hussein kicked the weapons inspector out of Iraq. And when I showed that there were inspectors in 2002, you quickly changed your story. How is that fraud? Prove that.

I see you're doing a good job of digging yourself a hole and getting ready to jump in. Well, I'm willing to extend you a life line. If you apologize to me immediately, pat yourself on the head 30 times while doing a little polka dance, I will forgive you. The choice is yours.

lol you are a really pathetic little individual. Find the post that I made that claim and then I'll go and read it again. At this point you're making things up again. I admit what is a relatively minor mistake and it was you who resorted to personal attacks first. You are a very sad individual and everything you say is so ironic because all of them applies to you.

Obviously you didn't attend school if you were to know how to debate professionally. You don't need to defend yourself anymore. I already know how uneducated you are. So many unsubstantiated statements will not prove you anything. You need to go back to a community college and get a new education.

I'll forgive you after you take viagra and get laid. That's assuming you're old enough to buy viagra ;).

[eelfliw]

LOL

this is from the guy who claims that he doesn't do personal attacks ;)
Be patient. Just wait a few days and you'll see the exciting conclusion of what I'm leading up to. :D

[eelfliw]

lol you are a really pathetic little individual. Find the post that I made that claim and then I'll go and read it again. At this point you're making things up again. I admit what is a relatively minor mistake and it was you who resorted to personal attacks first. You are a very sad individual and everything you say is so ironic because all of them applies to you.

Obviously you didn't attend school if you were to know how to debate professionally. You don't need to defend yourself anymore. I already know how uneducated you are. So many unsubstantiated statements will not prove you anything. You need to go back to a community college and get a new education.

I'll forgive you after you take viagra and get laid. That's assuming you're old enough to buy viagra ;).
Hmmm... did you forget how read yourself? Pay me $40 and I'll go read your old worthless posts again.

Where did I make things up? Find it. Prove it. If can't prove it, then you are what you call "fraud". Why do you like to call people fraud? Did you get labelled a "fraud" all the time by your parents? What did you do to earn that label? Why aren't you a good little boy like the rest of us?

OK, Sgt. Fraud, minor mistake? Wow! Finally you admit you made a mistake. That's amazing! How many posts did it take to get you to even admit you've made a mistake? Still, you call it minor. I'm sure Saddam Hussein wouldn't call it "minor". And you call me arrogant? Ha ha ha! Seems like the things you'd like to label me with are your own faults. It's like you don't have an ability to find other people's faults so you list all your own or use those that others have identified in you to label me. This is getting really funny. The more you accuse me of, the more I see in you. So, keep it coming.

Again, you accuse me of starting the personal attacks against you. YOU ARE LYING!!! Find my post to prove it. If you can't find proof, then YOU ARE LYING!!!. Of course, I will take another $40 from you to go thru old posts to find that you started it if you don't have time. :cheesygri Oh yeah, I hope you don't call this a "minor" mistake another 10 posts later. It's pretty major.

Do you debate professionally? I don't. I'm an amature. If you are a professional debater, I'm afraid you'll be on welfare pretty soon. That'll be sad because I'll be paying to feed you. May be I already am. Do you know what the word "professional" means? What did your teacher teach you about that word? Just in case I'm paying for your meals, please spit it out immediately, with dignity.

Why are you attacking my education? Is that how your parents or friends insult you and made you cry? What qualifications do you have? Did you go to school? Is it famous? What are you majoring in? And what's wrong with community college? There are many on RFD members here that went to community college and they are a lot more reasonable and less arrogant as you. I wouldn't look down on community college education. Do you have some bias towards community college education?

Take a Viagra to forgive me... lol. Must you copy my every move? Com'on. Don't be so lame. Be creative. Why isn't your superior to community college education not helping you to be more creative?

By the way, if you are under the misconception that I'm defending myself... ha ha ha. Just wait, Sgt. Fraud. I look forward to your pitiful reply.

[Sgt_Strider]

Hmmm... did you forget how read yourself? Pay me $40 and I'll go read your old worthless posts again.

Where did I make things up? Find it. Prove it. If can't prove it, then you are what you call "fraud". Why do you like to call people fraud? Did you get labelled a "fraud" all the time by your parents? What did you do to earn that label? Why aren't you a good little boy like the rest of us?

OK, Sgt. Fraud, minor mistake? Wow! Finally you admit you made a mistake. That's amazing! How many posts did it take to get you to even admit you've made a mistake? Still, you call it minor. I'm sure Saddam Hussein wouldn't call it "minor". And you call me arrogant? Ha ha ha! Seems like the things you'd like to label me with are your own faults. It's like you don't have an ability to find other people's faults so you list all your own or use those that others have identified in you to label me. This is getting really funny. The more you accuse me of, the more I see in you. So, keep it coming.

Again, you accuse me of starting the personal attacks against you. YOU ARE LYING!!! Find my post to prove it. If you can't find proof, then YOU ARE LYING!!!. Of course, I will take another $40 from you to go thru old posts to find that you started it if you don't have time. :cheesygri Oh yeah, I hope you don't call this a "minor" mistake another 10 posts later. It's pretty major.

Do you debate professionally? I don't. I'm an amature. If you are a professional debater, I'm afraid you'll be on welfare pretty soon. That'll be sad because I'll be paying to feed you. May be I already am. Do you know what the word "professional" means? What did your teacher teach you about that word? Just in case I'm paying for your meals, please spit it out immediately, with dignity.

Why are you attacking my education? Is that how your parents or friends insult you and made you cry? What qualifications do you have? Did you go to school? Is it famous? What are you majoring in? And what's wrong with community college? There are many on RFD members here that went to community college and they are a lot more reasonable and less arrogant as you. I wouldn't look down on community college education. Do you have some bias towards community college education?

Take a Viagra to forgive me... lol. Must you copy my every move? Com'on. Don't be so lame. Be creative. Why isn't your superior to community college education not helping you to be more creative?

By the way, if you are under the misconception that I'm defending myself... ha ha ha. Just wait, Sgt. Fraud. I look forward to your pitiful reply.

You are definitely the biggest imposter I have ever seen. I don't understand why you even immigrated here. If you are not a fraud, then the word fraud doesn't have a meaning at all. I have never seen an individual like you dismissing other people's statements as lies and then saying only yours as facts. You have provided no proof to back up any of your statements. How can you assert that they're facts while mine are wrong? That's absurd and shows you have never had a post-secondary education. I can only imagine that's how Chinese/Taiwanese schools teach you that. Otherwise I don't know where the hell you went to school. Everything you said to me represents yourself. Oh the irony, you are hillarious. I see where you're coming from and it's amazing how such an arrogant fool is resorting to this tactic to try to turn things around. You have won no debate nor proven me wrong. I have stated this countless time. Ask anyone who has had a descent education and see who is right or wrong.

It was also not me who turned this whole debate into personal attacks. It was you with your claim of "victory". Your lack of skills in debate has force you to turn things around and play this game of assuming supremacy in this topic and is simply not true.

You need to get some pleasure into your life because you sound like a very stiff individual. Calling me a kid again shows me the kind of individual that you are. You don't know how old I am nor know me at all and for you to make that kind of statement further reiterates my point about you. It's a shame that we went down that path as a result of your negligence. I have not gave up at all in this debate and when and if you decide to stop acting like a prick, we can continue until a victory is achieved.

[Ryan]

Everybody chill out. Lock.