| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
12 Jun 2005 02:01:04 PM |
| Object: |
Shaping China's Future Power |
Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.
Losing the War of Opinion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001708.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.6487
By Jim Hoagland, Page B09
The Bush administration risks having more Americans ask, "What are we
doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?" than, "How are we doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan?"
The Road to Riches
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
China
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d3294ecc38a6a57d
China / Meiguo
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/772524fe8bf033d4
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "dd00gg" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
12 Jun 2005 05:57:30 PM |
|
|
Henry Kissinger's view of China:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15595265%255E2703,00.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Komin" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
12 Jun 2005 10:50:02 PM |
|
|
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
China has no over-seas military power , China has no ability to project
her Chinese military power outre-mer.
China has a submarine doctrine for the protection of the Chinese sea
coast by subs since 1955, that was all ,
when Mao got the Russian help in the building of Soviet small subs
inside China..
China had no naval force since 1960.
So what China power are you talking about .
Now China begins to have Nuclear Subs , which were from Russia ,
Now China begins to build her own Nuclear subs and frigates .
China new has frigates with missiles and subs with missiles.
China cannot run an air-craft carrier .
China is trying to copy the French air-craft carrier , the Charles de
Gaule, with the French Raphael F1 naval fighters ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 01:27:07 AM |
|
|
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 02:37:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 02:56:02 AM |
|
|
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Speaking of that we need a new Korean War movie from hollywood. Maybe
a remake of Pork Chop Hill or something. Imagine what modern CGI can
with those battle scenes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 03:43:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
shane wrote:
wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Speaking of that we need a new Korean War movie from hollywood. Maybe
a remake of Pork Chop Hill or something. Imagine what modern CGI can
with those battle scenes.
"The Eighth Army's strides into North Korea stimulated new warnings
from China. At midnight on 2 October, after South Korean but as yet no
American forces had crossed the parallel, Foreign Minister Chou En-lai
formally summoned Indian Ambassador Kavalam M. Panikkar to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in Peking. Dismissing the South Korean advance as
inconsequential, Chou declared that if American or other U.N. forces
crossed the parallel, China would enter the war.24
After Panikkar relayed Chou's warning through diplomatic channels to
Washington, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with President Truman's
approval, authorized General MacArthur to engage any Chinese forces
encountered in Korea "as long as, in your judgment action by forces now
under your control offers a reasonable chance of success." Behind this
departure from the president's stand against involvement with China was
a strong inclination to dismiss the threat. Truman distrusted Panikkar
because of the latter's leaning toward Communist China, and since the
U.N. resolution of 7 October was then under consideration in the
General Assembly, the president believed that Chou was simply
attempting "to blackmail the United Nations by threats of intervention
in Korea."25
Similar warnings in the Chinese press and on Radio Peking also were
discounted. There was no denying China's ability to intervene quickly.
Twenty-four Chinese divisions had been identified near Yalu River
crossing points and another fourteen had been located elsewhere in
Manchuria. But the consensus of officials privy to the highest level of
intelligence appeared to be much as General MacArthur reported during a
conference with Presisdent Truman at Wake Island on 15 October: there
was "very little" chance of intervention. It appeared that both the
Chinese and Soviets, "in spite of their continued interest and some
blatant public statements, [had] decided against further expensive
investment in support of a lost cause."26
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/korea/ebb/ch1.htm
Chinese People's volunteer (Army OR Force OR CPVF) Army OR Force OR
CPVF
http://news.google.com/news?q=Chinese%20People's%20volunteer%20(Army%20OR%20Force%20OR%20CPVF)%20Army%20OR%20Force%20OR%20CPVF&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&q=Chinese+People%27s+volunteer+(Army+OR+Force+OR+CPVF)+Army+OR+Force+OR+CPVF&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Chinese+People%27s+volunteer+%28Army+OR+Force+OR+CPVF%29+Army+OR+Force+OR+CPVF&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Chinese%20People's%20volunteer%20(Army%20OR%20Force%20OR%20CPVF)%20Army%20OR%20Force%20OR%20CPVF&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 02:50:30 AM |
|
|
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 07:11:40 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
There is no war in the Middle East right now.
If you think otherwise, please name the nation we are
at war with.
A bunch of criminals recruited in places like Germany
and trained for their mission in, among other places,
the US, which was paid for by a group in Afghanistan
committed a horrible deed.
For that we invaded Iraq which has no known connection
to anything.
And you think this is all wonderful? We've killed far
more than 3000 Iraqis and for what?
Let me know when you think up an answer.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 08:23:55 AM |
|
|
"Paul J Gans" wrote:
There is no war in the Middle East right now.
Oh, piffle. When organized groups of people are blowing each other up, it's
war.
--
Dan
"Mission accomplished!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:18:28 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Dan Luke <c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Paul J Gans" wrote:
There is no war in the Middle East right now.
Oh, piffle. When organized groups of people are blowing each other up, it's
war.
No. A war is a physical combat situation between two
nations. Which nation are we at war with?
There are organized groups of people blowing each other
up from Chechnia to Africa.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:44:19 PM |
|
|
No. A war is a physical combat situation between two
nations. Which nation are we at war with?
Well, that's one definition of war. But hardly the only one. Most
definitions of war include armed military conflict between organized
factions.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/W0026300.html
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/warx?view=uk
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861709880
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/war
(To grab just the first four that came up)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 09:18:24 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 05:11:03 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
At the risk of repeating myself
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
as there would have been no excuse
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 06:54:58 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 05:11:03 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
At the risk of repeating myself
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
as there would have been no excuse
Well, the particular monstrous act in question had much more to do with the
House of Saud's particular way of dealing with homegrown religious nutjobs.
The Butcher of Bagdhad had a slightly different method, rather than
exporting his fanatics, he simply had them killed.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 12:59:51 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
[snip]
At the risk of repeating myself
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
as there would have been no excuse
They would've found another escuse, and if one is not available, made
one up.
It's quite clear that the administration had plans of going into Iraq
whether there was a 9/11 attack or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 11:11:38 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
In a news briefing at which he vigorously defended United States policy
in Iraq and American treatment of detainees, Mr. Rumsfeld said Mr.
Zarqawi, who was reported to have been wounded recently, was probably
in Iraq.
"Were a neighboring country to take him in and provide medical
assistance or haven for him, they obviously would be associating
themselves with a major linkage in the Al Qaeda network," Mr. Rumsfeld
said, in what seemed to be a veiled threat to Syria.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 12:31:00 PM |
|
|
<demorising@aol.com> wrote:
Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with
the
propaganda.
Wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Saddam's Iraq had nothing to do with
9/11, and posed no terrorist threat to the U. S., whereas the new Iraq is a
vast terrorist spawning ground. Rumsfeld et al. must now rattle sabers at
neighboring countries and face the prospect of further invasions when the U.
S. military is already stretched to the breaking point.
Madness.
--
Dan
"Mission accomplished!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 02:58:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
In a news briefing at which he vigorously defended United States policy
in Iraq and American treatment of detainees, Mr. Rumsfeld said Mr.
Zarqawi, who was reported to have been wounded recently, was probably
in Iraq.
"Were a neighboring country to take him in and provide medical
assistance or haven for him, they obviously would be associating
themselves with a major linkage in the Al Qaeda network," Mr. Rumsfeld
said, in what seemed to be a veiled threat to Syria.
Don't be stupid. Rummy's assertions have the same credibility as his
WMD dossier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 07:30:42 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
demorising@aol.com wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
In a news briefing at which he vigorously defended United States policy
in Iraq and American treatment of detainees, Mr. Rumsfeld said Mr.
Zarqawi, who was reported to have been wounded recently, was probably
in Iraq.
"Were a neighboring country to take him in and provide medical
assistance or haven for him, they obviously would be associating
themselves with a major linkage in the Al Qaeda network," Mr. Rumsfeld
said, in what seemed to be a veiled threat to Syria.
Don't be stupid. Rummy's assertions have the same credibility as his
WMD dossier.
Worse, al Zarqawi got bin Laden's blessing long after we
had invaded Iraq. He could not possibly be a reason for
the invasion.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 07:17:22 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
You say wrong and then you post this non-sequitur?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
al zarqawi's connection to al Qaeda came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Indeed, al Zarqawi came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Put into simple language, Iraq under Saddam had NO
ties to al Qaeda. *After* we overthrew Saddam, we
generated a lot of terrorists.
Now how does that justify our going to war with Iraq
in the first place? Or do you think that al Zarqawi
was supported by Saddam?
We are all ears to hear what you can dig up.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 08:26:18 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
You say wrong and then you post this non-sequitur?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
al zarqawi's connection to al Qaeda came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Nope, it is well known that Zarqawi went to Afghanistan in the 1980's
and worked with people now known to be in al-Qaeda. I found so many
references I know that you can confirm this yourself.
Indeed, al Zarqawi came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
False: "In October 2000, ZARQAWI was indicted in absentia in Jordan for
his role in the al-Qaida Millennium bombing plot targeting the Radisson
SAS hotel in Amman as well as other American, Israeli, and Christian
religious sites in Jordan."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm
Put into simple language, Iraq under Saddam had NO
ties to al Qaeda. *After* we overthrew Saddam, we
generated a lot of terrorists.
False: "Zarqawi's activities were not confined to a small corner of
northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical
treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he
recuperated to fight another day. During his stay, nearly two dozen
extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations
there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad coordinated the
movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his
network."
Now how does that justify our going to war with Iraq
in the first place? Or do you think that al Zarqawi
was supported by Saddam?
Yes. Otherwise one must assume that Western intelligence knew Zarqawi
was in Baghdad while Saddam did not. Very unlikely.
We are all ears to hear what you can dig up.
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yu" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 10:19:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
You say wrong and then you post this non-sequitur?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
al zarqawi's connection to al Qaeda came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Nope, it is well known that Zarqawi went to Afghanistan in the 1980's
and worked with people now known to be in al-Qaeda. I found so many
references I know that you can confirm this yourself.
He worked for the CIA in Afghanistan. Are you shy to mention this.
There was no Al Qaeda in the 80s.
Al Qaeda came about because USA station troops on the muslim holyland
and refused to leave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 03:07:30 PM |
|
|
Nope, it is well known that Zarqawi went to Afghanistan in the 1980's
and worked with people now known to be in al-Qaeda. I found so many
references I know that you can confirm this yourself.
Yes, it is easy to find.
He worked for the CIA in Afghanistan. Are you shy to mention this.
He didn't "work for the CIA". He was with the mujahadeen fighting the
Soviets.
The CIA helped them. But don't let your total disregard for the truth
get in the way
of a lame argument.
There was no Al Qaeda in the 80s.
Al Qaeda came about because USA station troops on the muslim holyland
and refused to leave.
No, Al Queda was founded in the late 80s.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 07:55:51 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
You say wrong and then you post this non-sequitur?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
al zarqawi's connection to al Qaeda came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Nope, it is well known that Zarqawi went to Afghanistan in the 1980's
and worked with people now known to be in al-Qaeda. I found so many
references I know that you can confirm this yourself.
Indeed, al Zarqawi came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
False: "In October 2000, ZARQAWI was indicted in absentia in Jordan for
his role in the al-Qaida Millennium bombing plot targeting the Radisson
SAS hotel in Amman as well as other American, Israeli, and Christian
religious sites in Jordan."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm
Put into simple language, Iraq under Saddam had NO
ties to al Qaeda. *After* we overthrew Saddam, we
generated a lot of terrorists.
Sorry. What you say above is no proof that Zarqawi was
supported by Saddam or was part of any Iraqi group.
His being indicted in Jordan has nothing to do with any
of this.
False: "Zarqawi's activities were not confined to a small corner of
northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical
treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he
recuperated to fight another day. During his stay, nearly two dozen
extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations
there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad coordinated the
movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his
network."
This is known to be false. Just more administration propaganda.
The plain fact is that today even the administration does not
claim that there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the
invasion. So you are out there all on your own, hung out to
dry because you believed their earlier lies.
Now how does that justify our going to war with Iraq
in the first place? Or do you think that al Zarqawi
was supported by Saddam?
Yes. Otherwise one must assume that Western intelligence knew Zarqawi
was in Baghdad while Saddam did not. Very unlikely.
We are all ears to hear what you can dig up.
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 06:40:38 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
AC wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 06:07:01 -0500,
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
shane wrote:
mvillanu@gmail.com wrote:
Komin wrote:
China' s future Power .
What Chinese Power ?
Her upcoming economic power. And all of the other powers that come
from being an economic power.
Political Science 101.
[snip]
Plus an almost bottomless pit of cannon fodder for the army.
Why would they want ape Bushie fascists?
Bush and his administration did not fly aeroplanes into tall buildings
full of innocent people.
Without this monstrous act of evil by sick religious fanatics
there would be no war going on in The Middle East right now.
Except that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now Hussein is a wicked man,
but he wasn't going to get into bed with Al Qaeda. Hussein liked Islamists
about as much as Americans do. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with 9-11, though that served as a convenient excuse. Not even Bush and Co.
mention Al Qaeda in reference to Iraq anymore. You should keep up with the
propaganda.
Wrong.
You say wrong and then you post this non-sequitur?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/politics/01cnd-military.html?ex=1118808000&en=74caaee03bb7637f&ei=5070
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered a warning to Iraq's
neighbors today, declaring that any country offering aid to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would be guilty of helping
someone "with blood on his hands."
al zarqawi's connection to al Qaeda came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Nope, it is well known that Zarqawi went to Afghanistan in the 1980's
and worked with people now known to be in al-Qaeda. I found so many
references I know that you can confirm this yourself.
Indeed, al Zarqawi came *after* we invaded Iraq.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
False: "In October 2000, ZARQAWI was indicted in absentia in Jordan for
his role in the al-Qaida Millennium bombing plot targeting the Radisson
SAS hotel in Amman as well as other American, Israeli, and Christian
religious sites in Jordan."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm
Put into simple language, Iraq under Saddam had NO
ties to al Qaeda. *After* we overthrew Saddam, we
generated a lot of terrorists.
Sorry. What you say above is no proof that Zarqawi was
supported by Saddam or was part of any Iraqi group.
His being indicted in Jordan has nothing to do with any
of this.
False: "Zarqawi's activities were not confined to a small corner of
northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical
treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he
recuperated to fight another day. During his stay, nearly two dozen
extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations
there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad coordinated the
movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his
network."
This is known to be false. Just more administration propaganda.
The plain fact is that today even the administration does not
claim that there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the
invasion. So you are out there all on your own, hung out to
dry because you believed their earlier lies.
Paul, what do you think of the following very recent (May 23, 2005)
report quoting former Iraqi prime minister Allawi? It pertains to
connections between Hussein's government and al Qaeda.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0
The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq
under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular
Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to
pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public
information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of
the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship
between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said
that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably
entered Iraq in the same period.
"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri - then deputy head
of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in
the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim
countries," Allawi said.
....
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda
in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and
Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a
person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and
arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter
Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and
directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he
said.
....
Now how does that justify our going to war with Iraq
in the first place? Or do you think that al Zarqawi
was supported by Saddam?
Yes. Otherwise one must assume that Western intelligence knew Zarqawi
was in Baghdad while Saddam did not. Very unlikely.
We are all ears to hear what you can dig up.
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
[snip]
This is known to be false. Just more administration propaganda.
The plain fact is that today even the administration does not
claim that there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the
invasion. So you are out there all on your own, hung out to
dry because you believed their earlier lies.
What the hell are you talking about...there most definitely WAS a
Muslim Fundamentalist and more specifically an Al Qaeda presence in
Iraq prior to the invasion.
They were looking to kill Saddam in hopes of establishing a Taliban
style government in Iraq. Saddam being the ever so wise (and brutal
murdering) despot managed to stop the Muslim Fundamentalist movement
before it really got moving. This is why the Kurds got gassed (among
other reasons).
This is also why Bin Laden calls Saddam (and I'm paraphrasing) a
"Secularist asskisser to the west"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:42:49 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
[snip]
This is known to be false. Just more administration propaganda.
The plain fact is that today even the administration does not
claim that there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the
invasion. So you are out there all on your own, hung out to
dry because you believed their earlier lies.
What the hell are you talking about...there most definitely WAS a
Muslim Fundamentalist and more specifically an Al Qaeda presence in
Iraq prior to the invasion.
They were looking to kill Saddam in hopes of establishing a Taliban
style government in Iraq. Saddam being the ever so wise (and brutal
murdering) despot managed to stop the Muslim Fundamentalist movement
before it really got moving. This is why the Kurds got gassed (among
other reasons).
I really don't think that the Kurds were part of an al Qaeda plot.
And the point you bring up is quite besides the point, if it is
true -- I've never heard it before.
This is also why Bin Laden calls Saddam (and I'm paraphrasing) a
"Secularist asskisser to the west"
Which clearly demonstrates that Saddam was not part of nor
did he aid bin Laden's network.
I might add another shocking fact. Al Qaeda isn't what
you think. It is a committee consisting of a very
few people. It is primarily a financing arm, dispensing
money for projects that it thinks will be useful for
pushing its goals.
9/11 for example was an idea brought to bin Laden with
a request for funding. It was granted. Most of the
people recruited were never in Afghanistan. Many
were Saudi university students recruited in Germany.
The training camps in Afghanistan were funded by bin
Laden. Don't even start to ask where his money comes
from.
The US government claims to be after bin Laden. Then
why the hell did they attack Iraq? No bin Laden
connection there.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 10:11:51 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
9/11 for example was an idea brought to bin Laden with
a request for funding. It was granted. Most of the
people recruited were never in Afghanistan. Many
were Saudi university students recruited in Germany.
Over half the perps of the 9/11 outrage were Egyptian Islamic radicals.
The same sort of folk who assassinated Anwar Sadat for making peace with
Israel.
The training camps in Afghanistan were funded by bin
Laden. Don't even start to ask where his money comes
from.
The US government claims to be after bin Laden. Then
why the hell did they attack Iraq? No bin Laden
connection there.
The real fear was the Saddam -did- have WMDs and he would threaten to
given them to radical groups unless he had his way. It turns out that he
was running a rather skillful bluff and that the intelligence services
(an oxymoron, that) were sucked in completely. Saddam's bluff was so
good, it provaked a war which ultimately destroyed him. The Lord works
in mysterious ways, His wonders to unfold. If you recall the pretext for
war in Iraq was that belief that Saddam had A-bombs and poison gas
hidden away. He really did have poison gas at one time and several
thousands of Kurds were slain with it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
21 Jun 2005 09:03:39 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in news:3h9kjiFfm5l3U1
@individual.net:
. It turns out that he
was running a rather skillful bluff and that the intelligence services
(an oxymoron, that) were sucked in completely.
Are you joking?
--
"...disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd
report. It just is."
{[Reporter] You're worried, sir, that you're losing some of your push?}
" I don't worry about anything here in Washington, D.C"
--Curious George, 5/31/05.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
