Chinese Threat - From The Limbaugh Letter

[Stormin Norman]

Taken from RushLimbaugh.com

Folks, it's time to turn our eyes to the Chinese communists, who deny the one billion-plus people of that enslaved nation their God given right to liberty. Yes, because there are some stories America's mainstream press refuses to cover, we at the EIB Network are experts at reaching across the oceans to the foreign press. That's how we find nearly 100 articles on great topics each day in the Rush 24/7 Total Stack of Stuff. Our boundaries are limitless.



This story comes from the Taipei Times. It reports that the leaders of what the so-called liberals call "the people's paradise" forces mainland Chinese women with Taiwanese husbands to have abortions. That's a ChiCom law. Now, everybody is talking about all this market stuff, and I understand it because it's a legitimate thing to discuss; but China is rattling its sabers at us and at Taiwan. They are preparing to make a military move on that tiny nation, and they're using what they perceive as our weakened economic state and distraction with the war on terrorism as their opening.

Michael Ledeen was part of a commission that was asked to look into the Chinese threat, and he concluded that it would be stupid to ignore what these people are saying.

They're actually saying they are preparing for war with us. They aim their ICBM missiles our way, using technology they did not have before Bill Clinton was in the White House and Loral Space taught them how to get them into orbit. The Clinton State and Commerce departments issued export licenses for technology to help the Chinese orbit payloads and get MIRVs - multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles - to put more than one warhead on ICBMs.

The same technology is used, of course, to aim missiles at us and threaten our West Coast cities. In 1996, the #2 man in the ChiCom Army, Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, remarked that the United States would not be willing to "trade Los Angeles for Taipei."

The threat is not an exaggeration and is not made up. We have a treaty with Taiwan that says we'll defend them if they're attacked, and there are a lot of people in our country who don't want to honor that treaty. Heck, the State Department had to apologize for e-mails referring to Congressman Dan Burton and certain people at National Review as "neo-Nazis." That's how much they hate conservatism.

People who don't want us to make a move against Iraq are leaking our war plans. We have people in this government trying to undermine their own president, and some of them are at State. National Review has done a great piece of work on this. There are people at State who to this day want to allow Saudi Arabians to enter this country without visas.

They see America as the threat, and not these people who have terrorists among them. Given what we know about September 11th, given the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui is on trial, this is just amazing. I don't want to overstate this, but we don't have just a set of enemies outside our shores. It appears we have enemies within, and it's really frustrating.

To all you commies:

I agree wholeheartly with this article. Refute this and explain how American liberalism can be perceived as anything, but a threat to national security. Do you not condone the violent overthrow of the government? Haven't you done everything in your power to undermine the War on Terror? Are you not in favor of cutting military expenditures and allowing any imigrant to come to America?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:43 pm on July 21, 2002)

[Brian]

China is a thread to the U.S,U.S's biggest fear are Chinese SunBurst missiles.

[Capitalist Imperial]

If china was in an attacking role, a conventional attempt would be suicide for millions of chinese people and billions in hardware.

In a nuclear scenario, we have the MAD of the cold war days.

[Brian]

China has a better ABM system then the U.S,S-300 built by Russia.A few S-300 systems were given to China.

(Edited by Brian at 1:28 pm on July 21, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

ABM's?

If you mean anti-balistic missle systems, that wouldn't matter much in a full out attack of US nuclear missles.

Besides, how do you figure the chinese have better ABM ability?

[vox]

Refute what? That war plans are being leaked? Of course they are--by the Bush administration. This gives Bush a way to distance himself from actually committing to an attack while still making it clear that there will be an attack. There's nothing new about what is known in Washington as "plausible deniability."

Refute that the US and China have a somewhat contentious relastionship? Big news there. No kidding.

All I really see here is the authoritarian belief that disagreement with the official line of the Bush administration is akin to treason, which is, of course, a foolish notion indeed.

I would, however, disagree with the idea that China wants to go to war with the US. China does, however, want Taiwan back. That's an issue popular with the Chinese people as well as the gov't, from what I've heard.

By the way, can you quote an actual liberal calling China "the people's paradise?" Or is this just another in a long string of outright lies courtesy of Rush Limbaugh?

vox

[Brian]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:33 am on July 22, 2002
ABM's?

If you mean anti-balistic missle systems, that wouldn't matter much in a full out attack of US nuclear missles.

Besides, how do you figure the chinese have better ABM ability?




ABM is short for Anti-Balistic Missile, Russia has 8500 S-300 Systems and with those Russia has the capablety of shooting down about 2000 ICMBs.S-300 is going to be the World's best ABM system until atleast 2020.S-300 has been tested 99% effective against ICBMs.

[James]

There won't be a wore with china - no ones that stupid in ye olde white house.

Just think how many things have "made in china" on the bottom, or on the label.

I don't think the U$A needs to upset its economy any more for a while...do you?

James

[Stormin Norman]

Nothing of real value comes out of china. Cheap clothing, silverware, and ceramic nativity sets. It would be an inconvenience, but the US has everything that it needs to be self sufficient. Of course, we would need to take the oil away from the Saudis, or develop the infrastructure necessary for the alternative fuel technology that currently exists.

[James]

Nothing of real value comes out of china

Do you know how many people live in china? And how many of those are simple factory workers?

If we (i use the term we as in the U$ and the UK) had a war with them it would creat chaos. It would be bad in every way, no good would come of it (especially in comparison with all the bad that would result).

[Stormin Norman]

I agree it would be disasterous. That wasn't my point. The point was that we could shift our means of production to include the necessary items that we are currently dependent on China to obtain. If it wasn't a necessity we would go without, because the industrial capital would be needed to manufacture essential goods and war machines.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 2:30 am on July 22, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:33 am on July 22, 2002
ABM's?

If you mean anti-balistic missle systems, that wouldn't matter much in a full out attack of US nuclear missles.

Besides, how do you figure the chinese have better ABM ability?




ABM is short for Anti-Balistic Missile, Russia has 8500 S-300 Systems and with those Russia has the capablety of shooting down about 2000 ICMBs.S-300 is going to be the World's best ABM system until atleast 2020.S-300 has been tested 99% effective against ICBMs.


www.fas.org

I see no mention of an S-300 ABM system

The US has the best ABM technology being developed. Why do you think china and russia are condeming the US for develping an ABM shield?

If china had such a superior ABM shield, they would be the ones under scrutiny.

Brian, could you reference a source, please?

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, I found it, the S-300 series are just sams, they are not dedicated abm platforms. They "have some potential" for "limited" abm ability

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/so...viet/index.html (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/index.html)

The patriot and aegis systems are just as good for limited ABM roles, and more reliable.

Besides, they still would be no match for a full on US nuclear assault.

If you really think that china could effectively stop a full US nuclear attack, you have more reasearch to do. (not an insult)

The only nation currently developing and testing a fully dedicated, fully integrated multi-level ABM system is the USA.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, I found it, the S-300 series are just sams, they are not dedicated abm platforms. They "have some potential" for "limited" abm ability

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/so...viet/index.html (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/index.html)

The patriot and aegis systems are just as good for limited ABM roles, and more reliable.

Besides, they still would be no match for a full on US nuclear assault.

If you really think that china could effectively stop a full US nuclear attack, you have more reasearch to do. (not an insult)

The only nation currently developing and testing a fully dedicated, fully integrated multi-level ABM system is the USA.

[Brian]

Patriots peices of crap,they didn't work very well in shooting down SCUDS.Russia has S-500 in the works and are going into service in 2010.Russia doesn't want the U.S's poor ABM system.Its more like U.S wants theres.
In the wake of the recent signing of a sweeping new nuclear arms disarmament treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russian President Putin (both right) has reportedly accepted President Bush's invitation to join the US in the cooperative development of a new US missile defense system. Mr. Bush had issued this invitation for the same reason he accepted Putin's demand to sign a nuclear arms disarmament treaty, which he had initially resisted and the Pentagon opposed. That reason was to appease Russia following Bush's laudable decision, announced last December, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. This represents yet another in a series of major US concessions designed to reward President Putin for his timely and vital military assistance to the Russian and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance, without which the US could not have won such a quick military victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The recently finalized agreement for de-facto Russian membership in the NATO alliance is another major concession to Mr. Putin.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin have reportedly agreed to set up a new joint committee on missile defense. The Russians pushed for language limiting the scope of the planned US missile defense system in the recently signed arms control treaty. However, President Bush persuaded them to accept this language in a separate 'strategic framework' document, which accompanied the treaty. This language is reportedly a reiteration of Bush's previous assurances to the Russians that the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the US from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles.

Historically, Russia has been vehement in its opposition to a US deployment of national missile defenses. However, President Putin opted to lessen Russian opposition to them in exchange for major concessions by the US listed above. Last year, the Russians proposed using Russian S-300, S-400 and yet-to-be-developed S-500 ABMs to provide a joint 'theater' missile defense system to defend Europe from ballistic missile attack from rogue states. This was primarily a Russian attempt to divide the US from its European allies and solidify European opposition to US NMD, a bid which was ultimately unsuccessful. The Russians now hope to win a few contracts from the Americans in the multi-billion dollar scheme to defend the US from ballistic missile attack. While the US would be sure to benefit from the acquisition of Russian technology, which is unparalled in the area of missile defense, it is unclear whether the Russians could serve as trusted partners in a bid to help design, build and deploy a US missile defense system aimed at enhancing US national security. Joint development of such a system with Russia would enable Russia to be fully appraised regarding its vulnerabilities and what countermeasures it could best employ to defeat and neutralize it using a wide variety of asymmetric means.

However, one important fact remains off limits to discussion by US and Russian negotiators. That is the fact that the Russians already have deployed a vast and potent missile defense system to defend their country consisting of thousands of the very S-300 ABM-capable missiles, which Putin offered to jointly field with Europe to defend them against long-range ballistic missile attack. In 1997, William T. Lee, a retired senior CIA and DIA analyst, reported on the existence of a massive Russian national ABM system in his authoritative work, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. Many of Lee's assertions are corroborated by the leftwing Center for Defense Information's Russian Federation Nuclear Arsenal website, which states that the Russians built 10,000 SA-10 (S-300 series) ABMs with a limited capability to shoot down strategic missiles and warheads. Mr. Lee says that the Russians have a total of 8500 of these missiles deployed to defend their country today all of which are linked together via a battlefield management system in Moscow and phased array radars deployed throughout Russia. The CDI website also states that the Russians deployed 1750 nuclear armed S-300 SAM/ABMs variants, which Mr. Lee identifies as being equipped with neutron warheads.

Following full implementation of planned Bush nuclear disarmament measures mandated by the new treaty, these dual purpose SAM/ABMs could presumably shoot down whatever part of our strategic nuclear deterrent would survive a hypothetical Russian nuclear first strike, effectively depriving the US of its ability to deter a Russian nuclear attack. Mr. Lee has stated that the Russian overall offensive nuclear and strategic defensive advantage over the US actually multiplies even if both the US and Russian offensive nuclear arsenals were to be downsized. This is because the reductions in US warheads mandated by the treaty would greatly reduce the number of target warheads that Russian ABMs would need to shoot down in the event of nuclear war between the US and Russia. Mr. Lee's writings confirm that the Bush Administration's planned dismantlement of the bulk of the US nuclear deterrent would leave the US dangerously vulnerable to such a disabling Russian nuclear first strike. Russian inclusion in joint development of the new US missile defense system will only serve to create a further potential vulnerability for the US. ***

© 2002 David T. Pyne, Esq.

[Guest]

haha, did you use to write for pravda during soviet days.

[Brian]

More idiots! :angry:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 12:56 am on July 23, 2002
Patriots peices of crap,they didn't work very well in shooting down SCUDS.Russia has S-500 in the works and are going into service in 2010.Russia doesn't want the U.S's poor ABM system.Its more like U.S wants theres.
In the wake of the recent signing of a sweeping new nuclear arms disarmament treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russian President Putin (both right) has reportedly accepted President Bush's invitation to join the US in the cooperative development of a new US missile defense system. Mr. Bush had issued this invitation for the same reason he accepted Putin's demand to sign a nuclear arms disarmament treaty, which he had initially resisted and the Pentagon opposed. That reason was to appease Russia following Bush's laudable decision, announced last December, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. This represents yet another in a series of major US concessions designed to reward President Putin for his timely and vital military assistance to the Russian and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance, without which the US could not have won such a quick military victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The recently finalized agreement for de-facto Russian membership in the NATO alliance is another major concession to Mr. Putin.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin have reportedly agreed to set up a new joint committee on missile defense. The Russians pushed for language limiting the scope of the planned US missile defense system in the recently signed arms control treaty. However, President Bush persuaded them to accept this language in a separate 'strategic framework' document, which accompanied the treaty. This language is reportedly a reiteration of Bush's previous assurances to the Russians that the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the US from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles.

Historically, Russia has been vehement in its opposition to a US deployment of national missile defenses. However, President Putin opted to lessen Russian opposition to them in exchange for major concessions by the US listed above. Last year, the Russians proposed using Russian S-300, S-400 and yet-to-be-developed S-500 ABMs to provide a joint 'theater' missile defense system to defend Europe from ballistic missile attack from rogue states. This was primarily a Russian attempt to divide the US from its European allies and solidify European opposition to US NMD, a bid which was ultimately unsuccessful. The Russians now hope to win a few contracts from the Americans in the multi-billion dollar scheme to defend the US from ballistic missile attack. While the US would be sure to benefit from the acquisition of Russian technology, which is unparalled in the area of missile defense, it is unclear whether the Russians could serve as trusted partners in a bid to help design, build and deploy a US missile defense system aimed at enhancing US national security. Joint development of such a system with Russia would enable Russia to be fully appraised regarding its vulnerabilities and what countermeasures it could best employ to defeat and neutralize it using a wide variety of asymmetric means.

However, one important fact remains off limits to discussion by US and Russian negotiators. That is the fact that the Russians already have deployed a vast and potent missile defense system to defend their country consisting of thousands of the very S-300 ABM-capable missiles, which Putin offered to jointly field with Europe to defend them against long-range ballistic missile attack. In 1997, William T. Lee, a retired senior CIA and DIA analyst, reported on the existence of a massive Russian national ABM system in his authoritative work, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. Many of Lee's assertions are corroborated by the leftwing Center for Defense Information's Russian Federation Nuclear Arsenal website, which states that the Russians built 10,000 SA-10 (S-300 series) ABMs with a limited capability to shoot down strategic missiles and warheads. Mr. Lee says that the Russians have a total of 8500 of these missiles deployed to defend their country today all of which are linked together via a battlefield management system in Moscow and phased array radars deployed throughout Russia. The CDI website also states that the Russians deployed 1750 nuclear armed S-300 SAM/ABMs variants, which Mr. Lee identifies as being equipped with neutron warheads.




© 2002 David T. Pyne, Esq.





"Patriots peices of crap,they didn't work very well in shooting down SCUDS.Russia has S-500 in the works and are going into service in 2010.Russia doesn't want the U.S's poor ABM system.Its more like U.S wants theres."

Patriots stopped hundreds of SCUD's in the gulf, brian, although final kill ratio stats are still debated. And do you think the US will just stand still until 2010? We are developing new SAM systems all of the time. I havn't even mentioned HAWK, or AEGIS, and the new patriot PAC-3:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm

Anyway, How is it that the US wants russias ABM system? Russia themselves, china, the axis of evil, and even some soft european nations are all protesting the US ABM program, not russias, as these nations know that once US abm technology is perfected, it will provide a distinct nuclear deterrant advantage. This will be a fully dedicated, muliti-faceted ABM system, not some modified SAMS with "potential" like the russian S-series. And the United states is far from wanting russias modified SAMS. Russia's equipment is known to be unreliable and prone to failure. If russia's ABM program was such a threat, the world would be protesting their S-series missle proliferation

But they are not. They are concerned with american ABM as that will be a more effective ABM array.


"In the wake of the recent signing of a sweeping new nuclear arms disarmament treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russian President Putin (both right) has reportedly accepted President Bush's invitation to join the US in the cooperative development of a new US missile defense system. Mr. Bush had issued this invitation for the same reason he accepted Putin's demand to sign a nuclear arms disarmament treaty, which he had initially resisted and the Pentagon opposed. That reason was to appease Russia following Bush's laudable decision, announced last December, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. This represents yet another in a series of major US concessions designed to reward President Putin for his timely and vital military assistance to the Russian and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance, without which the US could not have won such a quick military victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The recently finalized agreement for de-facto Russian membership in the NATO alliance is another major concession to Mr. Putin."

Concessions? We are assisting russia with trying to pump some health into their economy, and throwing them a bone because we would no longer recognize an out-dated treaty. What is the point of this paragraph? Is it suggesting that somehow russia's supplying the northern alliance with old t-72's was that much of a factor against the taliban? They were hardly used!

"Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin have reportedly agreed to set up a new joint committee on missile defense. The Russians pushed for language limiting the scope of the planned US missile defense system in the recently signed arms control treaty. However, President Bush persuaded them to accept this language in a separate 'strategic framework' document, which accompanied the treaty. This language is reportedly a reiteration of Bush's previous assurances to the Russians that the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the US from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles."

I agree, this is how any ABM system works, a full scale attack from a strategic nuclear power would not/could not be deflected by either US or russian ABM systems.

"Historically, Russia has been vehement in its opposition to a US deployment of national missile defenses. However, President Putin opted to lessen Russian opposition to them in exchange for major concessions by the US listed above. Last year, the Russians proposed using Russian S-300, S-400 and yet-to-be-developed S-500 ABMs to provide a joint 'theater' missile defense system to defend Europe from ballistic missile attack from rogue states. This was primarily a Russian attempt to divide the US from its European allies and solidify European opposition to US NMD, a bid which was ultimately unsuccessful. The Russians now hope to win a few contracts from the Americans in the multi-billion dollar scheme to defend the US from ballistic missile attack. While the US would be sure to benefit from the acquisition of Russian technology, which is unparalled in the area of missile defense, it is unclear whether the Russians could serve as trusted partners in a bid to help design, build and deploy a US missile defense system aimed at enhancing US national security. Joint development of such a system with Russia would enable Russia to be fully appraised regarding its vulnerabilities and what countermeasures it could best employ to defeat and neutralize it using a wide variety of asymmetric means."

Unparallelled? In what measure? Russia has the tendency to mak a lot of claims regarding weapon's performance from field tests, especially when trying to sell these systems in export markets, yet in real-world application, their equipment has historically been unreliable and prone to failure, from nuclear missle subs to aircraft, and even ICBMS. I'm sure this is a factor when considering why Putin's bid to get S-series to europe as a theater defense array was unsuccessful.

"However, one important fact remains off limits to discussion by US and Russian negotiators. That is the fact that the Russians already have deployed a vast and potent missile defense system to defend their country consisting of thousands of the very S-300 ABM-capable missiles, which Putin offered to jointly field with Europe to defend them against long-range ballistic missile attack. In 1997, William T. Lee, a retired senior CIA and DIA analyst, reported on the existence of a massive Russian national ABM system in his authoritative work, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. Many of Lee's assertions are corroborated by the leftwing Center for Defense Information's Russian Federation Nuclear Arsenal website, which states that the Russians built 10,000 SA-10 (S-300 series) ABMs with a limited capability to shoot down strategic missiles and warheads. Mr. Lee says that the Russians have a total of 8500 of these missiles deployed to defend their country today all of which are linked together via a battlefield management system in Moscow and phased array radars deployed throughout Russia. The CDI website also states that the Russians deployed 1750 nuclear armed S-300 SAM/ABMs variants, which Mr. Lee identifies as being equipped with neutron warheads."

This is par for the course, the US also has modified SAMS with phased-array radar that have limited ABM potential.


"Following full implementation of planned Bush nuclear disarmament measures mandated by the new treaty, these dual purpose SAM/ABMs could presumably shoot down whatever part of our strategic nuclear deterrent would survive a hypothetical Russian nuclear first strike, effectively depriving the US of its ability to deter a Russian nuclear attack. Mr. Lee has stated that the Russian overall offensive nuclear and strategic defensive advantage over the US actually multiplies even if both the US and Russian offensive nuclear arsenals were to be downsized. This is because the reductions in US warheads mandated by the treaty would greatly reduce the number of target warheads that Russian ABMs would need to shoot down in the event of nuclear war between the US and Russia. Mr. Lee's writings confirm that the Bush Administration's planned dismantlement of the bulk of the US nuclear deterrent would leave the US dangerously vulnerable to such a disabling Russian nuclear first strike. Russian inclusion in joint development of the new US missile defense system will only serve to create a further potential vulnerability for the US. *** "


BS, BS, BS!!!!

This passage suggests that somehow a russian "first strike" would mean that russian warheads detonate before the US can even return fire, when in fact a counter-strike would occur the moment that russian missles were launched!! Also, the arms-reduction treaty does not call for dimantlement, merely storage, so the US arsenal subject to the agreement would not be dismantled, merely stored but maintained. This whole article is also assuming that the russiam ABM is "vast and potent", when it hasn't even been tested in reality! I merely need to point out russias record on quality and accidents just within their own testing and operations, let alone against a force such as the US!!!

Brian, there is no way that russia can successfully defend against a full US nuclear strike using thousands of ICBM aircraft delivered, sub delivered, and ship delivered missles, many with MIRV's.

I don't know why you are such a champion of russian weaponry, Brian. Russian weaponry, compared to american weaponry, is unreliable, ill-maintained, and prone to failure!!


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:52 pm on July 23, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

Who vcare. Killing people = bad. Do we agree on something?
I realyl think all capitalists are warmongers, they manage to have this intricate arguemnts about missile defence systems. If russia shot all their nukes at america, could they stop them all. No. If US did the reverse, same stands. We should be looking for disarmament. It makes about as much sense as selling weapons to a country who's war you are trying to stop! Oh yeah, the US did that too....

[James]

We should be looking for disarmament.

They have done though! oh no, i forgot. Putting them in warehouses still counts as disarmament, and the amount that have been put in to storage have left each side with enough to still destroy the opposition several times. Democracy! Its great!

[Brian]

CI,your shitting out of your ass again.Also S-300 has been tested against Missiles with MIRVs and they were all shootdown.Laser system is a waste, a warhead would be coming down a mach 25.1 and you think a laser is going to aim and destroy it.Patriot had low SCUD killing ratios and most of the crap you wrote was American Propaganda.

All that money that goes to American ABM system Should go to Education insted.
Hopefully Nuclear War will not become reality.


(Edited by Brian at 6:34 pm on July 23, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

Yeah, disarmament to America means not being able to scramble the pilots straight away because the planes are in the hangars. Please.
Maybe they should have a referendum across the US and EU, whether or not to remove almost all nuclear weapons? No, they might lose.

I forgot though...the important point that's always made..hmm oh yes, it's a "nuclear detorent" right? Along the lines of, "don't attack us, we have enough military power to destroy the entire planet, with a bit left over for any sembelance of life left. "

I'd like to think it was just boys and their incredibly destructive, explosive toys, but that won't be simplistic enough to describe US foreign politics. The only complicated part is the beauocracy. Goes something like, Iraq = Evil, USA = Good, Afghanistan = Evil, Britain = Good.

There was a fabulous sketch of George Bush on the dead ringers TV series that was briefly on the BBC over here. They had a general going over a map of the world with George Bush, playing a game. "Now sir, lets play the game we did last week okay, "which of these countries is not like the other, which of these countries shouldn't we nuke?" "No sir, that's the UK, they are our Ally, lets try it again okay?"

That's about as complicated as warfare gets.
Iraq = Oil, US want Oil, US attack Iraq. Spin department kicks in, works out valid reason to attack Iraq, send to Press.

[Brian]

http://www.keymags.co.uk/dcforum/User_files/3ccd8c487a8974d2.jpg

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 12:31 am on July 24, 2002
CI,your shitting out of your ass again.Also S-300 has been tested against Missiles with MIRVs and they were all shootdown.Laser system is a waste, a warhead would be coming down a mach 25.1 and you think a laser is going to aim and destroy it.Patriot had low SCUD killing ratios and most of the crap you wrote was American Propaganda.

All that money that goes to American ABM system Should go to Education insted.
Hopefully Nuclear War will not become reality.


(Edited by Brian at 6:34 pm on July 23, 2002)


"CI,your shitting out of your ass again."

Man,I hope so

"Also S-300 has been tested against Missiles with MIRVs and they were all shootdown"

Oh, is that what the russian snake oil salesman told the chinese procurement board while they were trying to sell the things? What a surprise.

"LASER System is a waste, a warhead would be coming down a mach 25.1 and you think a laser is going to aim and destroy it"

Actually, if it can't already, within a few years US computer targeting technology will easily be able to track high-multiple mach speeds. The laser itself travels @ light speed, so mach 25 is a turtle. Many missles will be taken out by satellite-based lasers while they are out of the atmosphere.

"Patriot had low SCUD killing ratios and most of the crap you wrote was American Propaganda."

SCUD killing ratios are still controversial, no one knows the real stats. I offer no proipoganda, just observations in reality.

The map was funny, though.

[Brian]

More Propaganda! http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif

[Capitalist Imperial]

BS, Brian!!! For somone who seems actually pro-america sometimes, you really favor sorry-ass russian weaponry.

Why?

[Brian]

You don't want to know!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Spy!!! LOL

[Brian]

http://www.warnerbros.com/madmagazine/img/spylogo.jpg

[Bandalong]

"I agree wholeheartly with this article. Refute this and explain how American liberalism can be perceived as anything, but a threat to national security. Do you not condone the violent overthrow of the government? Haven't you done everything in your power to undermine the War on Terror? Are you not in favor of cutting military expenditures and allowing any imigrant to come to America?"-Stormin Norman

Hey remember the following facts:

1) Freedom of Speech. Evil Right-wingers and good liberals are all entitled to their own opinions and the right to express them.

2) Just because you do not support the misguided opinions of the Right wing does not mean you wish to violently overthrow the government. America has peaceful elections to do that. Just wait we''ll get you evil right wing republicans out of the Sencate, Congress and White House PEACEFULLY and LEGALLY

3) You are using the War on Terror to justify your wish to suppress the civil liberties that make America great.

4) America's military is second to none. Its education and health-care system are second to all of Europe. Which do you think is more desperately in need of money.

5) America is a nation built on immigrants. Unless Stormin Norman is a Native America I suspect he may be an immigrant too.

I put it to you who is the real traitor? Peaceful liberals or this right winger whose only wish is to suppress the civil liberties and freedoms that make America great.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Bandalong on 6:49 pm on July 26, 2002
"I agree wholeheartly with this article. Refute this and explain how American liberalism can be perceived as anything, but a threat to national security. Do you not condone the violent overthrow of the government? Haven't you done everything in your power to undermine the War on Terror? Are you not in favor of cutting military expenditures and allowing any imigrant to come to America?"-Stormin Norman

Hey remember the following facts:

1) Freedom of Speech. Evil Right-wingers and good liberals are all entitled to their own opinions and the right to express them.

2) Just because you do not support the misguided opinions of the Right wing does not mean you wish to violently overthrow the government. America has peaceful elections to do that. Just wait we''ll get you evil right wing republicans out of the Sencate, Congress and White House PEACEFULLY and LEGALLY

3) You are using the War on Terror to justify your wish to suppress the civil liberties that make America great.

4) America's military is second to none. Its education and health-care system are second to all of Europe. Which do you think is more desperately in need of money.

5) America is a nation built on immigrants. Unless Stormin Norman is a Native America I suspect he may be an immigrant too.

I put it to you who is the real traitor? Peaceful liberals or this right winger whose only wish is to suppress the civil liberties and freedoms that make America great.

See my response under the "hypocrisy of the right wing" thread.