Multani's Political Corner 5: Bush's International Policy

[Ura]

Spidey:

The problem with satellites is that they would probably have to have
been focused specifically on the area to get the details needed to
determine "fault. And apparently the spy plane was "badly damaged", so
who knows what antennas were operating and at what strength.

This is very true, however it also brings up the question of, perhaps the pilots did send a distress call, but because of damage to the communications equipment China never recieved it. This would in essence make both parties right simply because of a technical malfunction.

I have to ask you the same question: Do you have first-hand knowledge or some source that says this? From the article I read, state-run religion is not really "freedom of religion".

Well, I'm a shinto-buddist for starters and have studied eastern philosophy and religion in two different cities. One being Vancouver which has a huge Chinese and asian population. I have also been to buddist temples in Vancouver and spoken with the monks there who run them.
From everything I've been told and learned from these places, the state doesn't run religion in china, like another government branch, but rather keeps close tabs on it so that subversive groups in the guise of religion can be dealt with properly. This is as close to first hand knowledge as I have, but I think its fairly good since its coming from people from China.

I think I specifically stated "religions that other countries observe" (other being a good many). I have no opinion on whether wiccan is a religion or not, but "people giving you dirty looks and harassing" is different from the federal government locking you up. One's a local attitude, the other is the offical government's stance.

This is true as well, however I find that local attitude and government stance while of much different magnitudes are equally important to freedom. Since China has not up and said flatly, "No" to other religions then I don't find it so horrid. They may not let you build churches and temples, but at least they let you believe what you wish in peace to a degree. There are several places in the world worse then China about religion as I'm sure we all know. The fact that china is somewhat of an isolationist country and yet is still taking steps to open itself up is a good thing to me. Its just doing it in allowable steps which I have nothing wrong with. Just my opinion though.

Why must he have done something more? And what, you can't preach in public? No, I don't have another source; any more information would be welcomed.

As a matter of fact, no, you can't preach in pubic, at least not so far as I know. Things such as that as supposed to be kept in official places of worship such as missions.
I doubt he was doing that though which is why I think that there was probably something more behind it then just being catholic.

You didn't read the article closely enough to see that China has a STATE-RUN Catholic church, which is NOT the separation of the state and religion.

I did read that part actually, but thought nothing of it really. China foots the bills for it and thats basically about it, they don't include it in their daily lives in the same way that say, Islamic Law, does in the middle east. The fact that they're branch of cathlocism has renounced the pope and vatican was of little relevance to me as they are far from the first group to do that. Though I will say that having the vatican choosen chinese saints declared traitors was going really far. But as they haven't hunted them down and executed them, then I think it was just government muscle flexing more then anything else. They'll allow things to grow, but only at a rate they can handle.

As far as I know, the T. Square demonstrators were PEACEFUL. Some of the WTO demonstrators WERE NOT. And that is the difference.

The demonstrators at T. Square weren't peaceful, or rather, the ones who were really there to demonstrate were, but others in the crowds were not. Its the same situation that happened in Seattle and Quebec. The true demonstrators were there to protest, but with most large protests, they draw things such as government unsurpers and anarchists looking for ways to attack the governments.
This causes the problem of not being able to tell "good protestor" from "bad protestor" which can often lead to chaos. Humans are known for doing strange things in large groups, such as peaceful protests turned violent and rioting.

Recent news reports have said the crew admitted NOT being able to completely destroy all the spy equipment on the plane. It is presumed the Chinese have gotten something useful out of it.

I hadn't heard this, though it raises an interesting thought of what did the chinese get out of it. I'm sure the US wants to find out pretty badly.

 

[Mundungu]

I dont have the time to elaborate much today but I have a couple of points I want to comment on.

1) You have the freedom of religion in the US, but you also cannot preach in all public places (especially not non catholic orientated religions).
Those publice places include any kind of gouvernemnt, education etc.. buildings, which are public spaces.

2) On the subject of what is remaining on the plane that might be of importance, there was a very interesting article at the beginning of the incident about the destruction of sensitive materials.
Basically, all systems the crew can put their hand on can easylly be destroyed within a couple of minute with automated systems, small explosives etc etc.
The only thing that "Should" be left is the Hardware situated outside of the plane, like the radars and sensors in the wings and body of the plane. Not much actually.

3) On the payment for reparations or others that the chinese are asking for, there actually was a precedent (I heard that I lunch on CNN from a "specialist" who was interviewed) where the US charged the chinese for various costs while one of their plane was on US soil for whatever reasons (he didnt mention the case exactly or I didnt listen carefully), so the chinese only are doing what the US did to them before.

that's it for now, I'll be back later with some more...

 

[Multani]

I'm running out of interesting and appropriate titles, so I'm experimenting with new ones....
Anyway, on to the replies....

Spidey: The reply I gave you was my reason. It's not a very good one, but at the time, it was the only logical reason why I thought they might refrain from letting U.S. inspectors inspect the plane. Personally, I can't see why they wouldn't let U.S. inspecters inspect the plane. As a matter of fact, recently, the Chinese, have in fact, allowed the U.S. to investigate the plane.
...
As of right now, I could also think of another reason. I saw on a CNN report that a U.S. Senator, after reading the Chinese report on the crash, said that the report proves the U.S. is "right", when in fact, the report stated how it was the EP-3 that turned. The point of the above passage was to say that maybe the Chinese are afraid the U.S. would investigate the plane, and say that the U.S. was right all along. Then many people would think it was the China's fault. I guess they just didn't want to lose their support that they had on the incident.... (Note: This is not to say I think it's China's fault. Support doesn't always mean you're right ot wrong.

Debate shows are expected to belittle, that's why they're called debate shows (or opinion shows). For actual news stories, it would help to know the exact story/link/quote/whatever (and to make sure that's also not an on-air editorial).

It's not always just on Debates. Sometimes, I see it on CSPAN at press conferences, and sometimes, when a "specialist" reports on the news.

My question here would then be how long did you visit China, where did you visit, and who did you talk to, if anyone?

I visited twice in the last 8 years. Each time, I visited for 2.5 months. I wasn't as politically aware the first time, but on the second time, I talked to my relatives, and on vacations within the country, I talked to some of the people in my family's tourist group. And believe me, I have a LOT of relatives...
Granted, it's not enough to prove anything, but I'm betting that's more first-hand than anything you've got.

A mere five years ago, dissing Clinton would NOT get you imprisoned. I think I forgot the point of why you brought of the analogy but it was a BAD one

The point of that analogy was to prove how far China has gone in the Freedom od Speech department.

I don't have example of anyone being imprisoned for a cartoon, but there is the matter of the US scholars being imprisoned for THEIR "dissident" views...

And there is also the matter with Chinese scholars being imprisoned for THEIR accused spying.

Actually, I'm not. However, I think the FBI has more important matters than to keep track of a 14 year old "Chinese communist". 50 years ago, I might agree with you but unless you go out and DO something to put you on their "radar", I think you're safe.

You would be surprised. Even so, they would probably put a tab on me, and when I do something even slightly questionable in the future, BANG! A little bit of empty evidence, a lot of passionate, opinonated speeches, a pinch of media exposure, and a bit of racism, and voila, I'm in prison for a crime I didn't commit, and I didn't exactly get a fair trial...

Okay, so why doesn't China take a bigger stand on this, such as cutting off economic ties since militaristicly, that option is probably not viable? Why is it always the US who threatens the "economic status" of China? Is the Taiwan issue not THAT important to China?

Okay...I didn't quite understand the first sentence...
The truth is, if you notice, it's usually the U.S. that imposes or threatens to enforce the most economic sanctions. The U.S. uses it's position on the world economy almost like a weapon. How do you think it keeps a lot of third -world nations in line? China, on the other hand, doesn't want to lose the U.S. marketplace. It drastically helps the economy.
As for the Taiwan part, I think personally, China should attack, U.S. sanctions be damned. China is big enough to withstand U.S. sanctions, and after that, Taiwan will no longer be a nuicense. Bush is an idiot to think that sending in an Aircraft carrier is going to do anything...

To all: Look, I realize China is not perfect. It still has a long way to go in the human rights department, and it'll be a number of years before China becomes anything like the U.S. Personally, I think China is afraid to become completely Democratic, because, look what happened to Russia?! Democracy simply does not work in all countries, and I think the West is finding it hard to accept that. Also, I think the U.S. needs to begin to look at the good in China instead of always pointing out the bad. If the U.S. truly wants to help China in the right path, then I think some encouragement is needed....

 

[Spiderman]

Ura:

This is very true, however it also brings up the question of, perhaps the pilots did send a distress call, but because of damage to the communications equipment China never recieved it. This would in essence make both parties right simply because of a technical malfunction.

I agree.

Well, I'm a shinto-buddist for starters and have studied eastern philosophy and religion in two different cities. One being Vancouver which has a huge Chinese and asian population. I have also been to buddist temples in Vancouver and spoken with the monks there who run them.
From everything I've been told and learned from these places, the state doesn't run religion in china, like another government branch, but rather keeps close tabs on it so that subversive groups in the guise of religion can be dealt with properly. This is as close to first hand knowledge as I have, but I think its fairly good since its coming from people from China.

That's pretty reasonable. My further questions are what "subversive groups in the guise of religion" (besides Falun Gong) do they keep tabs on then?

This is true as well, however I find that local attitude and government stance while of much different magnitudes are equally important to freedom. Since China has not up and said flatly, "No" to other religions then I don't find it so horrid. They may not let you build churches and temples, but at least they let you believe what you wish in peace to a degree. There are several places in the world worse then China about religion as I'm sure we all know. The fact that china is somewhat of an isolationist country and yet is still taking steps to open itself up is a good thing to me. Its just doing it in allowable steps which I have nothing wrong with. Just my opinion though.

I agree they haven't said "No" but from my impression of it, repression of religion isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either .

As a matter of fact, no, you can't preach in pubic, at least not so far as I know. Things such as that as supposed to be kept in official places of worship such as missions.
I doubt he was doing that though which is why I think that there was probably something more behind it then just being catholic.

Well, here's the thing. If there's something else going on, wouldn't the Chinese say so? Otherwise, they leave people with this suspicion like you have now.

I did read that part actually, but thought nothing of it really. China foots the bills for it and thats basically about it, they don't include it in their daily lives in the same way that say, Islamic Law, does in the middle east. The fact that they're branch of cathlocism has renounced the pope and vatican was of little relevance to me as they are far from the first group to do that. Though I will say that having the vatican choosen chinese saints declared traitors was going really far. But as they haven't hunted them down and executed them, then I think it was just government muscle flexing more then anything else. They'll allow things to grow, but only at a rate they can handle.

True they're not the first group to "break away". So the question is: Is this "state-run" religion acknowledged outside of China like other breakaway groups? And why were the saint declared "traitors" in the first place? What exactly did they do?

The demonstrators at T. Square weren't peaceful, or rather, the ones who were really there to demonstrate were, but others in the crowds were not. Its the same situation that happened in Seattle and Quebec. The true demonstrators were there to protest, but with most large protests, they draw things such as government unsurpers and anarchists looking for ways to attack the governments.
This causes the problem of not being able to tell "good protestor" from "bad protestor" which can often lead to chaos. Humans are known for doing strange things in large groups, such as peaceful protests turned violent and rioting.

If you have the time and can get some articles stating the violence on T. Square, I'd appreciate the correction to my "impression" that it was ALL peaceful

Mundungu:

1) You have the freedom of religion in the US, but you also cannot preach in all public places (especially not non catholic orientated religions).
Those publice places include any kind of gouvernemnt, education etc.. buildings, which are public spaces.

So my question I guess is: If this arrested priest DID preach in public, where exactly did he do it?

2) On the subject of what is remaining on the plane that might be of importance, there was a very interesting article at the beginning of the incident about the destruction of sensitive materials.
Basically, all systems the crew can put their hand on can easylly be destroyed within a couple of minute with automated systems, small explosives etc etc.
The only thing that "Should" be left is the Hardware situated outside of the plane, like the radars and sensors in the wings and body of the plane. Not much actually.

As you said, it was the beginning of the incident where info was kinda murky. From what I remember, they have now said the crew smashed what they could but couldn't fully erase tapes/data, smash everything so some of it may be salvagable, etc. "Not much" has yet to actually be determined.

3) On the payment for reparations or others that the chinese are asking for, there actually was a precedent (I heard that I lunch on CNN from a "specialist" who was interviewed) where the US charged the chinese for various costs while one of their plane was on US soil for whatever reasons (he didnt mention the case exactly or I didnt listen carefully), so the chinese only are doing what the US did to them before.

From what I've heard, the rationale for initially getting payment was NOT due to costs associated with the US spy plane, but because they blamed the US for causing the accident. Different things... NOW they might be saying payments being made for the upkeep (and I think the US is saying it as well), but the US has still said they will not "pay" for the accident itself.

Multani:

Spidey: The reply I gave you was my reason. It's not a very good one, but at the time, it was the only logical reason why I thought they might refrain from letting U.S. inspectors inspect the plane. Personally, I can't see why they wouldn't let U.S. inspecters inspect the plane. As a matter of fact, recently, the Chinese, have in fact, allowed the U.S. to investigate the plane.
...

Right, and all I was doing was providing a counter-reason. No biggie.

As of right now, I could also think of another reason. I saw on a CNN report that a U.S. Senator, after reading the Chinese report on the crash, said that the report proves the U.S. is "right", when in fact, the report stated how it was the EP-3 that turned. The point of the above passage was to say that maybe the Chinese are afraid the U.S. would investigate the plane, and say that the U.S. was right all along. Then many people would think it was the China's fault. I guess they just didn't want to lose their support that they had on the incident.... (Note: This is not to say I think it's China's fault. Support doesn't always mean you're right ot wrong.

I see what you're saying. All I was saying was that it seemed to be a bit "unjustified" as there seems (to me) plenty of alternatives where they COULD let the plane be inspected yet still keep the evidence.

It's not always just on Debates. Sometimes, I see it on CSPAN at press conferences, and sometimes, when a "specialist" reports on the news.

Well, I don't know about press conferences. "Specialists" are also usually invited to express their opinion or interpretation (so it's no longer "facts") so no surprise there.

I visited twice in the last 8 years. Each time, I visited for 2.5 months. I wasn't as politically aware the first time, but on the second time, I talked to my relatives, and on vacations within the country, I talked to some of the people in my family's tourist group. And believe me, I have a LOT of relatives...
Granted, it's not enough to prove anything, but I'm betting that's more first-hand than anything you've got.

That's pretty good. You would win the bet . I'd still limit conclusions made to your family members or whoever you talk to though (I get my impressions from news reports which usually always say "The Chinese People" which also isn't the best but hey... I'm assuming they're interviewing too).

The point of that analogy was to prove how far China has gone in the Freedom od Speech department.

Oooookaaay. <shrug>

And there is also the matter with Chinese scholars being imprisoned for THEIR accused spying.

Scholars? Or scientists? Chinese or US citizens?

You would be surprised. Even so, they would probably put a tab on me, and when I do something even slightly questionable in the future, BANG! A little bit of empty evidence, a lot of passionate, opinonated speeches, a pinch of media exposure, and a bit of racism, and voila, I'm in prison for a crime I didn't commit, and I didn't exactly get a fair trial...

Again, I think you're giving the FBI too much credit. You have (so far that I've seen) no access to sensitive info, no self-published media, no website, no association to known Chinese under survelliance... nothing to put you on their radar.

Okay...I didn't quite understand the first sentence...
The truth is, if you notice, it's usually the U.S. that imposes or threatens to enforce the most economic sanctions. The U.S. uses it's position on the world economy almost like a weapon. How do you think it keeps a lot of third -world nations in line? China, on the other hand, doesn't want to lose the U.S. marketplace. It drastically helps the economy.

What I'm saying is, China shouldn't care about sanctions or economic impact. Yet they do. Sure they want trade (we all do) but it seems that with the trade deficit the US has with China, the US can afford to cut ties greater than China can.

As for the Taiwan part, I think personally, China should attack, U.S. sanctions be damned. China is big enough to withstand U.S. sanctions, and after that, Taiwan will no longer be a nuicense. Bush is an idiot to think that sending in an Aircraft carrier is going to do anything...

It's all show and smoke and mirrors. Although fromwhat I've read China has no navy to speak of anyway, so it's not like an amphibious assault is going to succeed now.

To all: Look, I realize China is not perfect. It still has a long way to go in the human rights department, and it'll be a number of years before China becomes anything like the U.S. Personally, I think China is afraid to become completely Democratic, because, look what happened to Russia?! Democracy simply does not work in all countries, and I think the West is finding it hard to accept that. Also, I think the U.S. needs to begin to look at the good in China instead of always pointing out the bad. If the U.S. truly wants to help China in the right path, then I think some encouragement is needed....

I think the problem with Russia and other countries trying to switch over to democracy (and capitalism goes along with that usually) is that there's too much history of corruption and graft for the system to work "instantly" to get results. It is a long-term thing and the US and others probably should do more to encourage it, but it's probably hard when you see money go down the drain and into the pockets of the few instead of those intended to help.

 

[Mundungu]

O k I based my input of info after reading the various materials:
Le Monde (french)
http://www.lemonde.fr/dh/0,5987,3208--2542122,00.html
Financial Times (UK)
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3YICU08MC&live=true&tagid=IXLYK5HZ8CC
Cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/missile.defense.02/index.html

I think we have talked enough about the plane - which nobody else apart from us really cares about anyway, check the news - and the freedom of speech/ religion -which we widely covered.

Time to get back to the beginning of the thread and the International politic of Mr. Bush.

OMG. If you never noticed b4, now your get a reminder.
He is a real REPUBLICAN.

I mean the world is at peace thanks to commons sense and years of build up of a state of stability, and he wants to provide the US with a huge military advantage compared to other nations. This might create unbalance and a potential new race to the armements.

Basically He is sendind out the message, Ok WE the US, rulers of the world, owners of the seas and -soon- the skies, wanna build a Firewall around our country and sphere of influence. You have two choices, either you are with us, or outside.

I mean that was ok in the REagan years where the US needed to redifine themselves. And it was a time of uncertainty with the falling of the East. You didnt know who would get what missile.

But nowadays, what are the Threats ? A couple of irresponsibles states with a limited capacity ?
Well if they are small and have a limited capacity, are they worth redefining the balance of power in our world and spend billions of YOUR money ?

Does Anybody really BELIEVE that a country like Iran, Irak or any other - apart maybe for russia and China - would be a THREAT to the US.

COME ON. The US has more fire power on site (Mediterranean, Persian Golf etc) than those countries have inhabitants ...)

I give it a very personal take here but This is really
1) The US playing the international bully, asking the rest of the world to take camps
2) An unecessary measure that will unbalance the power to please the military (BTW, how are you going to justify the spending for "star wars" while doing 1.4 bio Tax Cut W ??)
3) An action that pisses off not only the "adversaries" but the US allies as well.

4) Not to be on the side of china as well, but if you read between the lines, you will understand stand the US - in fact - considers China to be the new Threat to the World.


Nothing against G.W. I dont know him personally. But he sure shows what a republican he is ...

And I do not KNOW if the Bush's had a bad chinese restaurant in the Neihgborhood or got bad chinese Godd fortune cookies at the time, but both Bush administrations sure do not like China.

Enough for today, I am tired.

 

[Mundungu]

Ok sorry to post that as a separate post but I found it afterward and the content was not linked directly to my first post

REad this :
-----------
WASHINGTON -- A flap over the Army's plan to buy more than 600,000 black berets with "made in China" labels has been put to rest by the Pentagon's number two civilian leader.

QUOTE
"U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China, or berets made with Chinese content" - Pentagon statement



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Tuesday said the berets won't be made in Communist China. The announcement drove a stake through the heart of a plan by Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki to distribute 1.4 million black berets to soldiers by June 14, which is the Army's birthday.

"The Army Chief of Staff has determined that U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China, or berets made with Chinese content," the statement says.

"I direct the Army and the Defense Logistics Agency to take appropriate action to recall previously distributed berets and dispose of the stock" already purchased, Wolfowitz statement said.

The blunt death blow to the controversial decision to buy the Chinese-made berets will lay to rest a sore point with conservatives in Congress.

Soldiers will still wear the black berets, which were until now the exclusive domain of the Army's elite Ranger units, but berets made in Communist China will be excluded from the purchasing program.

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

Now let me just comment that, yes I understand, given the recent events that The US military doesn not want to purchase thisng "Made in China".

However, I find the tone used very near to WWII or Cold War propaganda material.

Quote one:
"The Army Chief of Staff has determined that U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China, or berets made with Chinese content,"
Mhh, shall we go through the list of military supplies which are made in China or with chinese material ... ?
Give me a break
Quote 2
"but berets made in Communist China will be excluded from the purchasing program"
We had a talk on how Red China could be racist ?
Well, how do you feel If I call you Capitalist American.
No it is not an insult, but there is lot of connotations when speeches include Communist here, Capitalist There.

One last note. China is officially China. It is not the People's Republic of China (check the uniform of the athletes a tth eolympics), And China proclaims itself socialist. Not communist.

Oh well I dont want to get started again. It is really to late.

 

[Spiderman]

Hate to break it to you, Mundungu, but the world is definitely NOT "at peace and stable". I don't even know where to begin... suffice to say the world wouldn't need all the UN peacekeeping missions if that were so.

I don't know about this "huge military buildup". All I'm aware of is the Pentagon trying to redesign the various forces to combat urban terrorism, rather than the traditional land battles of the past (I don't even know if the "two front" philosophy still holds).

I have no idea about the berets either. Probably just a backlash from the spy plane incident.

 

[Mundungu]

First of all, the read of the day:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/02/missile.defence/index.html

Originally posted by Spiderman
Hate to break it to you, Mundungu, but the world is definitely NOT "at peace and stable". I don't even know where to begin... suffice to say the world wouldn't need all the UN peacekeeping missions if that were so.

Well nowadays the conflicts are local and guerilla-like.
I do not see how a global anti missile shield systems will help solve those.
I dont know how old you are Spidey, but I still remember the commotions of the attemps by the US to "deploy" missiles in West Germany early late 70s, early 80s.
The World is at balance when compared to the cold war state of the 50s and 60s. Nobody feels like third world war is around the corner anymore.
Scrapping the treaties that permitted the end of the cold war does not seem like a good idea to me.
I feel, as I stated earlier that is would create a situation of "you're either with us, or against us".

Originally posted by Spiderman

I don't know about this "huge military buildup". All I'm aware of is the Pentagon trying to redesign the various forces to combat urban terrorism, rather than the traditional land battles of the past (I don't even know if the "two front" philosophy still holds).

The development of this shield necessitates scraping non proliferation agreements BECAUSE it requires building up new systems and increasing the military presence in some areas. Natural reaction of the countries outside of the shield will be to find ways around it, overwhelm it OR build their own, which in turn could lead to a strechtening of the shield which .... bla bla bla ...

If you have a very tense relation with your neighbour and you know he recently purchased a gun, while installing bullet proof windows, how would you feel ?

Originally posted by Spiderman

I have no idea about the berets either. Probably just a backlash from the spy plane incident.

I have no problem with the Us not wanting its military personal to look at a "made in China" sticker each time they have to cover their head.
I have a problem in the US rhetoric and choice of words, which sounds hostile to me.

We will see how this ABM thing is going to develop, but I dont think that W. is making many friends internationally.

 

[Spiderman]

Mundungu:

Well nowadays the conflicts are local and guerilla-like.
I do not see how a global anti missile shield systems will help solve those.
I dont know how old you are Spidey, but I still remember the commotions of the attemps by the US to "deploy" missiles in West Germany early late 70s, early 80s.
The World is at balance when compared to the cold war state of the 50s and 60s. Nobody feels like third world war is around the corner anymore.
Scrapping the treaties that permitted the end of the cold war does not seem like a good idea to me.
I feel, as I stated earlier that is would create a situation of "you're either with us, or against us".

Most conflicts are local. However, some are slightly conventional (some of the Africa conflicts) and some have the potential to spread (Balkans, Africa).

I think there needs to be distinction of when we're talking about "missiles", which is what most of this has turned to, and "conventional", which is still going to happen.

I agree that WWIII seems highly unlikely. But regional conflicts will still exist.

So far, the only treaty I see mentioned in the 1972 treaty which did NOT, IMHO, permit the end of the Cold War. That happened with Gorbachev in the mid-late 80's.

The development of this shield necessitates scraping non proliferation agreements BECAUSE it requires building up new systems and increasing the military presence in some areas. Natural reaction of the countries outside of the shield will be to find ways around it, overwhelm it OR build their own, which in turn could lead to a strechtening of the shield which .... bla bla bla ...

From what I'm reading, it will cause buildup of "defensive" missiles, not offensive. And it says Bush is calling for a reduction of the nuclear arsenal (which most of the countries in Europe seem to agree).

If you have a very tense relation with your neighbour and you know he recently purchased a gun, while installing bullet proof windows, how would you feel ?

Due to the reduction of the offensive capability, your analogy should be amended to "installing bullet-proof windows but getting rid of the guns".

I have no problem with the Us not wanting its military personal to look at a "made in China" sticker each time they have to cover their head.
I have a problem in the US rhetoric and choice of words, which sounds hostile to me.

Honestly, those statements you quoted was from a general who is not directly involved in national policy. As such, I tend to disregard "personal opinions" 'cause as you said, it's just rhetoric.

We will see how this ABM thing is going to develop, but I dont think that W. is making many friends internationally.

It seems he has a friend in Australia . Most of the European allies seem to be interested in what he's saying; I'm sure they just want to hear the details.

Let's keep this in perspective. Bush has eight years in office max. Congress is more volatile, with turnover coming every two years. And most scientists seem to think that a realistic system is still far away. IMHO, the most the US will do is waste a ton of money again just researching the thing, not even putting it into place.

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

...and you should agree they are neutral, because I'm not saying much, so it would be hard to pin anything to me.

The basic tone I'm getting from Spiderman and Multani's discussion is the following:

Spiderman and Multani: You know what? Arguing is pointless.
.
.
.
Let's keep arguing.

Seriously, it's pointless to try to ascribe blame to either country, as everyone has seen the arguments that arise. Spiderman thinks China was at fault, Multani thinks the US is at fault. I have an opinion, but it is just that, so I'm not going to state it. Moreover, the argument about which country is "better," which is essentially what this became, has no one correct answer, and, more importantly, has nothing to do with the issue of the plane.

By the way - and this is where some might say I'm wrong, but that would be a gut reflex, so listen - capitalism is not the economic equivalent of democracy. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of anarchy. Communism is the economic equivalent of democracy.

I'm sure that will be hard to digest, but don't yell at me.

 

[Spiderman]

I think it's futile to assign blame right now because not enough information has been revealed to make that decision.

However, we also argue to expose logic flaws and false information, which when corrected and acknowledged by the person, can cause a change in opinion.

 

[Ura]

Spidey:
Regardless if this missile shield is for "defensive" purposes or not, it causes tension simply by its presence which is why the Canadian government has been trying to get it halted since they want to build it in our northern most territories. Putting a big "defense only" sticker on something that can cause mass destruction doesn't make it any less intimidating. The US doesn't need it either, they already have the largest full military force in the world, if anyone is going to strike at them its going to be with stealth and subterfuge (terrorist class attacks), not by ICBM bombardment. Thats why nuclear missiles are so scary, not because of what we know they can do, but because we know they are there and are afraid of them being launched at us.
Imagine if you will, a magic game where you are playing mono green, you have no enchantment removal or artifacts. You have no flying creatures either. Your opponent has you trapped behind a Moat and you know he is holding a Volcanic Geyser in his hand with more then enough mana in play to kill you at any time and you know there is nothing you can do about it. Him saying that his geyser is for "defensive" purposes only doesn't make it any more comforting, you know as soon as he's tired of playing he'll roast you by making his "defense" into "offense".

As for the general trash talking China cause they don't want made in China berets to me is just bad professionalism. Being a high ranking member of the military he is a representative of that group and thus should be more respectful of other countries and individuals regardless of his own opinion. If he wants to cuss them out or say whatever he wants in a war room or on a battle field then go right ahead, but if your in a news conference or being quoted by the media, then you have to be doing better and cleaner then the other guys. It doesn't matter if he is directly involved with national policy or not, his words still carry alot of weight in some circles. Just my opinion though.

Although I don't know about Australia, I know that most of the European allies are somewhat neutral with bush at the moment. They've been just as busy being annoyed/pissed with him as they have been supportive. Overall he hasn't made any friends internationally, but then he hasn't totally lost any either. Most countries are just staying on a neutral balance with him.

He's a 1 term president imho, unless you get Ed the horse running against him next election. Mind you, I'd probably vote for Mr. Ed anyways if I lived there.

 

[Spiderman]

Ura:

The US doesn't need it either, they already have the largest full military force in the world, if anyone is going to strike at them its going to be with stealth and subterfuge (terrorist class attacks), not by ICBM bombardment

It is because of possible terrorist attacks or "rogue" states is why Bush is pushing for this shield. He has already acknowledged the low possibility of an ICBM bombardment.

It's also in the link that Mundungu provided that the Australians are for this.

Apparently the Russians are willing to talk too; they haven't dismissed it out of hand like the Chinese.

About the berets: It all depends how you read the statement. If you didn't have the recent tensions of the Sino-US relationships, it would just mean "the US is not using stuff made by China". It's hardly inflammatory; they could have put in a bunch of adjectives to make it worse. Again, I think it's simply backlash and no big deal; this lost contract isn't going to ruin China's economy.

 

[Mundungu]

About the berets.

Well if it was not in the current context of tensions I think that the tone would have been different.

Furthermore it is completely hypocritical in my opinion.

If the military ditches all elements "made in China" or "contening chinese materials" then the GIs are going to be running half naked !

Are they going to return all the computers which have chips made in China ?

Are they going to dismantle armored vehicles that have been assembled with steel coming from China ?

I don't think so.

What about office supplies. let me check two minutes around my office.....
Most of the pens, staple remover and stuff is made in China.

If the Army is the one placing directly the order to the chinese, fine, cancel it. But what about all the suppliers of military equipment. Go tell them they cant use any "made in China" stuff. You will see their reaction.

IMHO, they should just get rid of the made in China stickers or cancel the contract. Not make such a fuss about it and transform it into a political issue.

 

[Ura]

Spidey:

The whole missile shield thing still doesn't make much good sense when you look at the logistics. The "rouge" states and dissident countries that hate the US are already all under keen observation and many such as Iraq are constantly being disarmed whether by NATO inspection crews/peace keepers or by allied surgical strikes. None of them have the ability to launch missiles at the US especially from the north unless they're afraid or Russia still or one of the other slovac countries. They would literally need some kind of aircraft or ship to launch them from that direction without using ICBM's, and as you say yourself, G.W.B. has already acknowledged a really low chance of that actually happening. The deal with terrorists is that they plant bombs and use stealth in that fashion, thy don't mass an assault force and try to attack the entire country, that draws to much attention to themselves before the attack has happened and can much to easily be stopped in comparison to planting a bomb in a building or a plane. Such as the dallas federal building bombing. Those kinds of attacks are more in line with what terrorists do. Which is why the missile defense shield doesn't make much sense to me.

As for the berret's. While yes, I agree that the statement reads as "The US doesn't want to use made in China products." I think it was presented badly which is where I see a lack of professionalism on that general's part. He could have simply said that they chose not to use products made in china insted of adding in all the other terms such as communist china and whatnot. Whether it was meant in bad taste or not isn't an issue with me so much as that its something said that wasn't needed. What if it was Bush himself that said to reporters, "We don't use things made in communist China." I'm sure that would have caused a bit of an uproar in the international community. If the plane incident hadn't happened that I doubt that they would have bothered with it at all. I don't perticularly think its a big deal either, but I'd still like to see ideal professional attitudes coming from our military and government leaders. It is part of the job after all.

 

[Cateran Emperor]

I would jump back into the fray here, but this is getting to be too long for me to read.

Mundugu: Gee, good to know what a Republican I am.

 

[Multani]

CE finds this too long to read....I find I can keep up with it just fine....

[replies]
Spidey:

Scholars? Or scientists? Chinese or US citizens?

Scholars. As far as I know, I think they were Chinese citizens, but are considered legal aliens in the U.S. I'm not sure, and I can check tommorrow and make sure....

Again, I think you're giving the FBI too much credit. You have (so far that I've seen) no access to sensitive info, no
self-published media, no website, no association to known Chinese under survelliance... nothing to put you on their radar.

I'm not so sure. They probably are monitoring this. Trust me, they have enough resources to keep tabs on me. And when a war with China comes, I guarentee you they'll either throw all Chinese people into camps, or deport them. Frankly, I don't even think execution is out of the question... I know I'm paranoid, but I have no true love for the FBI. I know that given the chance, they would come and harrass me and my family.

It's all show and smoke and mirrors. Although fromwhat I've read China has no navy to speak of anyway, so it's not like an amphibious assault is going to succeed now.

Taiwan isn't that far away from China. China can shower Taiwan and hit their military bases with hundreds of old short-range missiles. Once Taiwan's military power is disabled, troops can be flown in. Aeigis radar or not, it's not going to stop 700 short-range missiles....The cruisers and destroyers Taiwan has won't last long either. The only thing that might slow the initial onslaught would be subs, but Taiwan has no Nuke subs, and they have to refuel. Besides, China has a decent patrol navy, enough to stop a few outdated diesel subs....

From what I'm reading, it will cause buildup of "defensive" missiles, not offensive. And it says Bush is calling for a reduction of the nuclear arsenal (which most of the countries in Europe seem to agree).

Spidey, any defensive weapon has offensive capability. There is no such thing as a truly 'defensive' weapon. As for nuke reductions, the U.S. has been calling for the stuff for years, but it's all lip service. The U.S. still has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, as well as the largest conventional army.

Due to the reduction of the offensive capability, your analogy should be amended to "installing bullet-proof windows but getting rid of the guns".

Modernizing an army doesn't mean reducing it. The U.S. still pumps out tanks and aircraft and ships like during the Cold War. The analogy should be "getting bullet-proof windows, and buying MORE guns."

Apparently the Russians are willing to talk too; they haven't dismissed it out of hand like the Chinese.

The Russians would be willing the spit-polish the U.S. shoes and kiss their butts if it would save their economy...

CE:

Oh please, do join in this. Spidey seems to be a bit outnumbered.
Anyway, it's not as hard to keep up as you think. Just don't read the quotes. Only the replies, and main body paragraphs....

[/replies]

I think that the U.S. will never downsize her army because the U.S. wants to project power and influence. Personally, I think as far as military intervention goes, the U.S. should go isolationist. God, why can't life imitate art this time. You'd think a Prime Directive wouldn't kill the country. Of course, in the U.S. half the leaders are warhawks....

As for Bush, I think he's intentionally trying to piss off China. His Dad is probably pretty pissed. You know, Bush Sr. was actually rather friendly with China. Of course he didn't show that during his administration, but he was an ambassador over their for a few years, and he knows how to deal with China. His son, on the other hand, knows jack about diplomacy, and thinks he can be hardball with any country...if only China could give the U.S. a bloody nose and set her in her place....

 

[Ura]

Multani:

One thing I'll note for this bit here.

Taiwan isn't that far away from China. China can shower Taiwan and hit their military bases with hundreds of old short-range missiles. Once Taiwan's military power is disabled, troops can be flown in. Aeigis radar or
not, it's not going to stop 700 short-range missiles....The cruisers and destroyers Taiwan has won't last long either. The only thing that might slow the initial onslaught would be subs, but Taiwan has no Nuke subs,
and they have to refuel. Besides, China has a decent patrol navy, enough to stop a few outdated diesel subs....

China would never even have to do that. They have the largest standing air force in the world with fighters and armorments comparable to anything in the US or Great Britan. Their pilots are also experts at assualting naval vessles, hence why they have no need for a full fledged navy.
A standard MiG28 can drop a long range self guiding torpedo over 50 miles from the target and fly away. Bye bye diesle subs and cruisers. The destroyers may last longer because they're designed with anti-missle and anti-torpedo counter measures, at least the US ones are. It would be a small matter for them to get the air force together and bomb the beans out of taiwan if they wanted to expend the resources and manpower to do it.

 

[Spiderman]

Ura:

The whole missile shield thing still doesn't make much good sense when you look at the logistics. The "rouge" states and dissident countries that hate the US are already all under keen observation and many such as Iraq are constantly being disarmed whether by NATO inspection crews/peace keepers or by allied surgical strikes. None of them have the ability to launch missiles at the US especially from the north unless they're afraid or Russia still or one of the other slovac countries. They would literally need some kind of aircraft or ship to launch them from that direction without using ICBM's, and as you say yourself, G.W.B. has already acknowledged a really low chance of that actually happening. The deal with terrorists is that they plant bombs and use stealth in that fashion, thy don't mass an assault force and try to attack the entire country, that draws to much attention to themselves before the attack has happened and can much to easily be stopped in comparison to planting a bomb in a building or a plane. Such as the dallas federal building bombing. Those kinds of attacks are more in line with what terrorists do. Which is why the missile defense shield doesn't make much sense to me.

While it seems unlikely now, the "rogue states" (currently listed as Iraq, North Korea, and Iran) are developing ballistic missiles that will have the range, either from the base country or set up somewhere else (opinion starting from "either"). And since they are currently "hostile" to the US, there's no way of really telling their intentions. The current leaders of those countries might be content with the actual R&D, but who knows about future leaders? The whole premise of the argument is that more countries are getting the capability, as opposed to 30 years, so there needs to be changes (that's the premise, not my personal opinion).

Side note: it was Oklahoma, not Dallas.

As for the berret's. While yes, I agree that the statement reads as "The US doesn't want to use made in China products." I think it was presented badly which is where I see a lack of professionalism on that general's part. He could have simply said that they chose not to use products made in china insted of adding in all the other terms such as communist china and whatnot. Whether it was meant in bad taste or not isn't an issue with me so much as that its something said that wasn't needed. What if it was Bush himself that said to reporters, "We don't use things made in communist China." I'm sure that would have caused a bit of an uproar in the international community. If the plane incident hadn't happened that I doubt that they would have bothered with it at all. I don't perticularly think its a big deal either, but I'd still like to see ideal professional attitudes coming from our military and government leaders. It is part of the job after all.

I've read the press release again and it never mentions "communist"; it does exactly what you say it should do "chose not to use products made in China". And apparently there had been criticism of letting the $27 million contract go to China instead of American firms in the first place.

China would never even have to do that. They have the largest standing air force in the world with fighters and armorments comparable to anything in the US or Great Britan. Their pilots are also experts at assualting naval vessles, hence why they have no need for a full fledged navy.
A standard MiG28 can drop a long range self guiding torpedo over 50 miles from the target and fly away. Bye bye diesle subs and cruisers. The destroyers may last longer because they're designed with anti-missle and anti-torpedo counter measures, at least the US ones are. It would be a small matter for them to get the air force together and bomb the beans out of taiwan if they wanted to expend the resources and manpower to do it.

To get such a sizable air force needed, I would think they would have to move some from other parts of the country. I don't think they're all based right near Taiwan. Such a military movement would probably be looked upon with great suspicion, letting Taiwan and the US react.

Multani:

Scholars. As far as I know, I think they were Chinese citizens, but are considered legal aliens in the U.S. I'm not sure, and I can check tommorrow and make sure....

Well, that's interesting. I have heard of no new cases like you describe recently.

I'm not so sure. They probably are monitoring this. Trust me, they have enough resources to keep tabs on me. And when a war with China comes, I guarentee you they'll either throw all Chinese people into camps, or deport them. Frankly, I don't even think execution is out of the question... I know I'm paranoid, but I have no true love for the FBI. I know that given the chance, they would come and harrass me and my family.

I'm sure they have enough resources too, but they need to know first what to look for before zeroing in on this. Even if they were monitoring this, there is nothing specific to give them cause to worry (what, supporting China? I'm betting thousands of people are out there doing the same thing...)

Going on the basis of WWII, on one hand, you have the Japanese camps (and that was the West Coast, I don't know what the population of Japanese in the Middle or East Coast was). On the other, you have pretty much nothing done against Germans or Italians. Frankly, I doubt that in todays climate a "rounding up" will occur and especially not executions (as that didn't happen on a wide-spread scale to the Japanese, if at all).

No true love for the FBI? Did you have a personal experience with them?

Taiwan isn't that far away from China. China can shower Taiwan and hit their military bases with hundreds of old short-range missiles. Once Taiwan's military power is disabled, troops can be flown in. Aeigis radar or not, it's not going to stop 700 short-range missiles....The cruisers and destroyers Taiwan has won't last long either. The only thing that might slow the initial onslaught would be subs, but Taiwan has no Nuke subs, and they have to refuel. Besides, China has a decent patrol navy, enough to stop a few outdated diesel subs....

Ooookaaay, if we're talking about a theoretical attack, the troop and material movement needed to support such an invasion would definitely be noticed. Now, the US could be caught napping or disregard it, but I'm giving that a low chance. I don't even know what US forces are in the region and could get over there in 24-48 hours notice, but I'm guessing it's not going to be a cakewalk for the Chinese.

Spidey, any defensive weapon has offensive capability. There is no such thing as a truly 'defensive' weapon. As for nuke reductions, the U.S. has been calling for the stuff for years, but it's all lip service. The U.S. still has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, as well as the largest conventional army.

This is true, BUT a defensive weapon such as the interceptors are most likely configured to stop another missile. Beats me to know how long if and when it would take to re-configure it to attack a city or whatever.

Lip service? Why do you say that? Do you have numbers from the START treaties of how many missiles were destroyed each year to support this? And of course they have the largest nuclear arsenals; they had it to begin with.

Modernizing an army doesn't mean reducing it. The U.S. still pumps out tanks and aircraft and ships like during the Cold War. The analogy should be "getting bullet-proof windows, and buying MORE guns."

It doesn't HAVE to mean it, but in this case it does. Again, please support your statements because I'm just going to flat out say the US HAS reduced its conventional army and materials (why do you think Lockheed and Martin had to merge? 'Cause they were losing business...)

If Bush is asking to increase defensive capability while reducing the nuclear arsenal, then the analogy STILL is "buying bullet-proof windows and getting rid of guns).

The Russians would be willing the spit-polish the U.S. shoes and kiss their butts if it would save their economy...

Please, how is this going to save their economy? The whole point was that people were raising the issue that the shield would only benefit the US and "its allies" while China and Russia would have "strenuous objections" and all I'm saying is that's NOT the case.

CE:

Oh please, do join in this. Spidey seems to be a bit outnumbered.

That does seem to be the case. Good thing it doesn't matter.

I think that the U.S. will never downsize her army because the U.S. wants to project power and influence. Personally, I think as far as military intervention goes, the U.S. should go isolationist. God, why can't life imitate art this time. You'd think a Prime Directive wouldn't kill the country. Of course, in the U.S. half the leaders are warhawks....

The US could easily go isolationist if the mood in the country swings that way and enough "continuity" among the leaders elected manage to get their policies through. But I also think people are more aware of their role in the world and will be more resistant to let that happen.

 

[Multani]

...And you thought I was out of it...actually I was just busy..but anyway
ON to the replies!

Spidey:

Well, that's interesting. I have heard of no new cases like you describe recently.

Check the Newsweek Issue...I can't recall it at this moment, but it has a moss-covered spyplane on the cover....
I don't know how recent these events are, but I don't think it's ancient history either.

I'm sure they have enough resources too, but they need to know first what to look for before zeroing in on this. Even if they were monitoring this, there is nothing specific to give them cause to worry (what, supporting China? I'm betting thousands of people are out there doing the same thing...)

Going on the basis of WWII, on one hand, you have the Japanese camps (and that was the West Coast, I don't know what the population of Japanese in the Middle or East Coast was). On the other, you have pretty much nothing done against Germans or Italians. Frankly, I doubt that in todays climate a "rounding up" will occur and especially not executions (as that didn't happen on a wide-spread scale to the Japanese, if at all).

No true love for the FBI? Did you have a personal experience with them?

Yes, and I bet they're monitoring those thousands as well. As for the comment for the camps for Germans and Italians, there were in fact many camps for them as well. Also, the FBI has never apologized to the Germans or the Italians for putting them in camps. I got that from my History book.

No, I haven't had a personal experience with the FBI, but I've read enough history to hate their guts...

Ooookaaay, if we're talking about a theoretical attack, the troop and material movement needed to support such an invasion would definitely be noticed. Now, the US could be caught napping or disregard it, but I'm giving that a low chance. I don't even know what US forces are in the region and could get over there in 24-48 hours notice, but I'm guessing it's not going to be a cakewalk for the Chinese.

You give the U.S. military, and the U.S. too much credit and you don't give China enough credit. Here's my question. Will the U.S. risk a full-fledge war with China over a single small island? (Knowing how Bush makes irrational decisions , I don't even know if I can answer that question.) Besides, if China loses Taiwan, China has everything to lose. Plus, it's much harder to assault something than it is to defend something....

This is true, BUT a defensive weapon such as the interceptors are most likely configured to stop another missile. Beats me to know how long if and when it would take to re-configure it to attack a city or whatever.

You're taking defensive missiles at face value and not considering their implications. If the U.S. has Nukes and a missile shield, and other countries only have nukes, than the missile shield in fact, becomes an offensive weapon. Anything that gives anything a tactical advantage is an offensive weapon. Thus the say that no weapon is 100% defensive.

If Bush is asking to increase defensive capability while reducing the nuclear arsenal, then the analogy STILL is "buying bullet-proof windows and getting rid of guns).

As long as their still are guns, than you're analogy is still flawed. True, it wouldn't necessarily mean getting more guns, but Mundungu (or was it Ura)'s analogy is still correct. Also, look at things this way. You give away a pistol for an Uzi. Would you not see it as an increase in firepower which can still be considered an increase in arms?

Please, how is this going to save their economy? The whole point was that people were raising the issue that the shield would only benefit the US and "its allies" while China and Russia would have "strenuous objections" and all I'm saying is that's NOT the case.

My point is, the Russians would do nearly anything to save their economy. You need to stop looking at everthing at face value. Actually, once a missile shield is up, the U.S. won't need allies. Besides, the shield would only help the U.S. allies, and China and Russia would have objections. That IS the case.

Spidey, if you think about it, the U.S. does in fact, almost have a world hegamony. Her influence spreads nearly across the globe. However, have you ever wondered why the U.S. has so few true allies? Maybe it's because the rest of the world thinks what the U.S. is doing is wrong....
The fact that the U.S. even considers helping Taiwan against China is in violation of International Law, not to mention, China's sovereignty. I can see why many people say the U.S. is a hypocrite. When it suits the U.S. interests, the U.S. pretends to uphold law, but as soon as it no longer suits U.S. interests, out go the laws...