View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Tue Feb 20th, 2007 02:13 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17129.htm

Issue number one:

As president will you attack another country soon?

Answer: No

Unprovoked violence that results in loss of human life is called murder by any known civilized standard so the question is:

 

As president will you murder?

Answer: No

Additionally:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=China+Russia+Iran+allies+military+capability

The notion of invincibility or perhaps the ability to murder with impunity is ridiculous. The victims of murder will eventually inspire loved ones to defend themselves effectively.


Given what is at stake, it is easy to see why the United States, Russia, and China all have such an abiding interest in the outcome of the Iranian crisis. For Washington, the replacement of the clerical government in Tehran with a U.S.-friendly regime would represent a colossal, threefold accomplishment: It would eliminate a major threat to America's continued dominance of the Persian Gulf, open up the world's number two oil-and-gas supplier to American energy firms, and greatly diminish Chinese and Russian influence in the greater Gulf region.
Not surprisingly, Moscow and Beijing are doing everything in their power to prevent any American geopolitical triumph in Iran or Central Asia from occurring, though without provoking an outright breach in relations with Washington -- and so endangering complex economic ties with the United States. 
Skip to this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chinese+military+might

Pick one.

I pick the second one:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/18/130057.shtml

How about this one:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DG18Ad02.html

In the beginning phase of a military campaign, China is determined to "level the technological playing field" in order to "enhance its chances of operational success". Consequently, the focus of the PLA's "operational theory" on:







  • "Destroying the enemy command system.
  • "Crippling the enemy information systems.
  • "Destroying the enemy's most advanced weapons systems.
  • "Crippling the enemy support (logistic) systems.
  • "Disrupting the critical links in the enemy's campaign systems (ie, denying the enemy the synergies that accrue from its technological superiority)." Can they do it?

    How about this search:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Chinese+military+technology+capability

    Intelligence ?

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html

    That looks like 'intelligence'.

    As the aircraft carrier battle groups advance, China draws out one of its "trump cards" by leaking to the world media that it is dumping its holdings of US Treasury bonds and shifting to gold and euros.
    Meanwhile, strategic planners at NORAD watch with glee as they observe on the screen as monitored by their radar satellites that Chinese surface ships are making a hasty retreat as nine allied carrier battle groups advance toward the Philippine Sea and Chinese waters near Taiwan.

    The assassin's mace: China's anti-satellite weapons
    Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock as monitor screens suddenly go blank. Then all communication via satellites goes dead. China has drawn its second "trump card" (the assassin's mace) by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded or physically destroyed their hosts. 
    The answer is no on moral grounds and no on practical grounds.

    The answer is only yes only if the idea is to destroy the American Dream and as many innocent people as possible just for fun.

    A campaign slogan:

    Anyone can do better than a psychopath.  


    http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis69.html
     

    North Korea is notorious for backing away from deals, and, claims the US, has violated numerous previous ones. The latest agreement, trumpeted by the Bush Administration as a great diplomatic victory, was really due to China’s intervention. Whether it holds up and advances, or Kim is just buying more time, remains to be seen. 

     What really worries them, of course, is that direct talks with North Korea raise the obvious question: why not direct talks with Iran over its so far peaceful nuclear program? The neocons want war with Iran, not talks, so the example of North Korea is undermining their carefully developed strategy. February 20, 2007 Eric Margolis 
     

    • Last edited on Wed Feb 21st, 2007 12:10 pm by Joe Kelley