Poll: Most Americans feel war not justified

[Xenimus]

Umm maybe you're reading it wrong.

The Clinton Administration responded that Lee’s statement wasnot helpful and reaffirmed the “one China” policy and opposition to “two Chinas

They are talking about lee's statement as not being helpful, by reaffirming the 'one China'. Hmm, thats a confusing statement. Did Clintons say it reaffirmed the 'one china' or lee's statement?

Still no comments about your other beloved torturous regimes?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Umm maybe you're reading it wrong.


They are talking about lee's statement as not being helpful, by reaffirming the 'one China'. Hmm, thats a confusing statement. Did Clintons say it reaffirmed the 'one china' or lee's statement?

Still no comments about your other beloved torturous regimes?

Still no evidence to prove that any of them are tied to republicans as you so eloquantly blurted out.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Here's your boy Clinton trading national security for 30 pieces of silver in his re-election coffers:

Clinton's China Syndrome
Date: 3/23/98

The president's sex drive has pushed an even bigger scandal off the front pages. Red China seems to be getting the services it paid for in Bill Clinton's re-election effort. It's stronger militarily and strategically, thanks to the Clinton administration.

That China had a plan for buying influence in American politics is beyond question. Even the president's defenders admit such a plan existed.

Also beyond dispute are the ties of Democratic Party fund-raisers to Beijing. Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie are cooperating with federal prosecutors probing China-backed fund-raising schemes. Maria Tsia is under indictment for hers, and John Huang's links to the Chinese- controlled Lippo Group are well-known.

Soliciting political contributions from foreign sources is illegal, as is laundering gifts through third parties. And evidence suggests these four people did both to pump money into the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

As with all political donations, the giver expects a little something in return. For legitimate political action committees, that can mean just getting in the door for a meeting.

For China, the little something appears to be U.S. help in building up its military and strategic assets.

Panama Canal. A Hong Kong firm, Hutchison Whampoa, was given the contract to operate the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the canal. The Panamanian government awarded the contract to Hutchison in January 1997, and Red China took control of Hong Kong in July, reports Russell Evans of the National Security Center.

The U.S., which is set to turn over full control of the canal to Panama next year, has done little to protest the award. Talks between the U.S. and Panama to maintain a U.S. military presence in the Canal Zone have collapsed. Yet the Chinese are buying up everything they can there.

''Communist China will be the beneficiary of our indolence and neglect,'' said Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus. But is it just neglect?

Missile technology. The Clinton administration is set to certify that Red China has halted exports of militarily useful technology to countries like Iran. With that certification, the Chinese would be free to import sophisticated missile technology from the U.S. And the Clinton administration is ready to give it to them.

In breaking the story, The Washington Times quoted from a cover letter stamped ''secret'' signed by Gary Samore, a White House National Security Council official. It said:

''In essence, we would offer the expanded commercial and scientific space cooperation with China (in limited areas) if China meets our conditions for joining the (Missile Technology Control Regime) and controlling its missile-related exports to Iran, Pakistan, et cetera.''

But Clinton's own State Department has discovered that China tried to sell dual-use nuclear equipment to Pakistan and Iran within the last several weeks.

Costco. The government-controlled Chinese Overseas Shipping Co. wanted to lease the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard in California. And the Clinton administration was all too willing to help. After Clinton met with Long Beach officials in 1995, he gave the go-ahead for the project. He took the unusual step of putting a White House aide on the case to lobby for the Cosco lease. National Economic Council aide Dorothy Robyn made calls pushing skeptical state and local preservation officials to approve the deal, which was given just a cursory review for security concerns.

Even usual Clinton supporters Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., called for a deeper security review. It would have uncovered Cosco's smuggling of 2,000 Chinese- made AK-47 assault weapons into Oakland, Calif. It also would have unearthed Cosco's gathering of intelligence in the Long Beach area. The furor over security concerns and environmental issues has blocked the lease from going forward.

An adviser to Cosco was one of six Chinese officials that went to the White House as a guest of Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 in illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee.

Computers. The Clinton administration - maybe as a sign of good faith - eased controls on the export of high-end computers to China in '95. The computers now give China's missile program greater simulation power in assessing blast damage and kill zones.

Rep. Dan Burton, R- Ind., chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, wants to know more about the China connection to the White House. But the Clinton camp is pulling its usual stall-and-delay tactics so it doesn't have to answer any questions. And Burton is losing his patience.

So should the American people. If Clinton is letting Red China arm itself in exchange for campaign cash, he should face charges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc.

 

[NightTrain]

Up to your old bullshit, eh, Jones? Very well, let's see your backup on the following points and we'll discuss.

You know the rules, I don't want to see any bullshit you love to dredge up from your whacko lib sites. Only AP news affiliates are acceptable. I'll even number them for you, for your convenience in providing legit backup.

Originally posted by Xenimus


1) What would I have US do? How bout stop giving china our vital technology, they make our missile guidance systems, we can't even make them in our own country now, thats a security risk.

2) This is what happens when you put private corporations in the position of providing defense. Just like Bush Sr's dad sold valuable technology to the Nazis and running their aushwitz camp. Don't worry though, he was convicted.

3) There is no excuse for supporting murderous dictorial regimes. whats your excuse for uzbekistan, pakistan, and terkementan?

4) Your supreme leader supports the 'one china' which means they don't support Taiwan being a soveriegn nation. obviously you dont know this.

5) So you don't support evil torturous dictatorships like uzbekistan? Maybe you shouldnt vote for Cheney. Because he does, its official.

6) They say they want to stop killing innocents, but they support the death penalty, and let hundreds of hungry children die in america every year.

Don't give me the runaround, Jones. It's what got you banned last time. I want legit backup of all these fine points of yours. Tick, tock.

 

[Annie]

It's easier just to say inflammatory statements and then sit back. That's a definition of some word, just isn't coming to me yet....

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Kathianne
It's easier just to say inflammatory statements and then sit back. That's a definition of some word, just isn't coming to me yet....

:cough:cough:....troll....:cough:

 

[Xenimus]

FINE, I will play this silly game and link EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT I make. But you saying I must use ONLY AP sources is insane, you can say any journalist is a liar, simple as that. I'll try to provide only valid, non-liberal websites to prove my points.

1) What would I have US do? How bout stop giving china our vital technology, they make our missile guidance systems, we can't even make them in our own country now, thats a security risk.

Hmm, can't find anything rock solid on this subject, Im fairly certain it is true. However, while researching this, Im fairly certain it was CLINTON's fault, so maybe you can look into it and be happy you have another reason to hate him.

2) This is what happens when you put private corporations in the position of providing defense. Just like Bush Sr's dad sold valuable technology to the Nazis and running their aushwitz camp. Don't worry though, he was convicted.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/deathroll/IGFarben1.html

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0001a/fortunateson.html

http://mobile.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/7379/

3) There is no excuse for supporting murderous dictorial regimes. whats your excuse for uzbekistan, pakistan, and terkementan?

Uzbekistan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/khanabad.htm

Pakistan
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/708476.html

Terkemenistan
http://www.ancsf.org/essays_analyses/bush_caspian_oil.htm

6) They say they want to stop killing innocents, but they support the death penalty, and let hundreds of hungry children die in america every year.

Heh, I think its obvious republicans support the death penalty, and we all know it cannot be perfect and many innocents die in a most horrid way.
Well Its my opinion, that by not trying to uphold the middle class, and allowing millions of children slip into poverty, and homlessness, results in hundreds of childrens death.
But anything confirming this would seem partisan. I don't know of any recent studies. But I do know of one that proves that Walmart makes whatever town or city they invade, more poor. If anyone wants it.

Ok, so I'm trying to prove myself, you may take all these sources and TRASH them and try to undermine their message somehow. But atleast Im trying, show some respect yall.

 

[NightTrain]

I specifically told you that only AP sources would be acceptible. The reason behind this should be self evident.

There are plenty of liberal AP members around the world, and yet you can't find even ONE that supports your looney statements.

1) We don't give China sensitive technology. If you'll recall, a chinese spy was recently caught in Los Alamos and hammered. We make our own missile guidance systems. You failed.

2) Three links, not one an AP affiliate, simply paranoid lib sites with their anti-bush agendas. You failed.

3) First link is bullshit. Second link - AP affiliate! Attaboy, I knew you could do it. Let's jump to the meat of the matter :

The lifting of sanctions against Pakistan does not apply to those imposed after Musharraf's bloodless 1999 coup, a senior Pakistani official said on condition of anonymity. That means Pakistan is still ineligible for loans from the United States and remains prohibited from sending its soldiers to the United States for training, the official said.

Seems to me that it's really not supporting a 'murderous regime', as you put it, does it? Do you think, perhaps, that it's part of the overall picture to capture Bin Laden? Nahhh, couldn't be. We're just in this for the OIIIILLLLL, right?

Third link : a discussion from some guy in San Francisco about Caspian Oil Reserves. WTF?

4) Not Included - why not?

5) Not Included - why not?

6) No backup whatsoever on your part. To my knowledge, there are no children starving to death in America. There are plenty of different relief agencies, food stamps, food banks, salvation army, soup kitchens, etc.. You don't have a fucking clue, as usual.

WTF does Walmart have to do with anything?

Well, I gave you a chance, and you blew it. You failed.

Buh Bye.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NightTrain
WTF does Walmart have to do with anything?

I think he believes that walmart is the source of evil in the world as it is a big corporation.

Personally, i cant figure out why anyone would be upset over a company offer tens of thousands of jobs nationwide, giving consumers a low price, and making a small profit. But then im just one of them capitalist pigs.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I think he believes that walmart is the source of evil in the world as it is a big corporation.

Personally, i cant figure out why anyone would be upset over a company offer tens of thousands of jobs nationwide, giving consumers a low price, and making a small profit. But then im just one of them capitalist pigs.

The only beef I have about Walmart is this:

Due to it's huge size which gives it unbelieveable market control, it can set up shop in a small town, sell at a loss in order to undercut the local businesses to the point of closing them down.

Walmart has enough influence that they can go to a manufacturer (Huffy bikes comes to mind) and tell them that they will have to make their bikes at a lower cost, or they will stop buying them. Being the number 1 retailer, if your product is not on their shelves your business outlook isn't too good.

I know, I know, it's capitalism, but it borderlines on greed IMHO

 

[Annie]

Sears did this throughout the 60's and 70's; don't know if they are such a powerhouse today.

I love small towns, Walmarts have a tendency to knock out the business districts found there. However, the vast number of jobs that they are 'taking' are themselves minimum wage or about.

Now I'd rather work for Tom a few blocks over than a Walmart, but can Tom give me health insurance? How many employees can Tom and the other members of the Chamber hire? Walmart?

In Chicago, Walmart is taking an unprecedent step of opening in an inner city neighborhood. The aldermen were up in arms, but Daley, (no dummy he), and the people from the neighborhood told the aldermen to STFU. They needed the jobs and the lower prices.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Actually Flasher I think we need to get past 6/30, probably for a month or two before any such poll will hold any water. Not only that, how many of those people questioned do YOU believe have any clue of what's going on? Heck, most probably still couldn't tell you on a ME map, where Iraq and Afghanistan are, much less their neighbors.

Polls like this always make be leary, how was it phrased and what were the choices?

Just MHO

Agreed.
What is clear, is that many support the war and many don't.

I wish I could say I support it because the troops are fighting to protect our freedom and I'm humbled by them.(if that makes sense, I don't know how to say it)

But I have a hard time following my President blindly.
But, yeah, 6/30.

One more thing, can we please find the only fucking Saudi that's as tall as me? Maybe I need to get out to the courts, I wonder if that S.O.B. plays street ball?

 

[Annie]

Flasher, do you think there are ANY circumstances where those not backing Bush, would? Please don't turn to Afghanistan, since Moveon.org and WS movements were arguing against, until they faced the overwhelming reaction-now that was Oct. after Sept, but in any circumstances would the opposition agree to anything? Or is it just, 'anyone but Bush?'

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Flasher, do you think there are ANY circumstances where those not backing Bush, would? Please don't turn to Afghanistan, since Moveon.org and WS movements were arguing against, until they faced the overwhelming reaction-now that was Oct. after Sept, but in any circumstances would the opposition agree to anything? Or is it just, 'anyone but Bush?'

re: your first question, a good many just don't like him. You're right.

But def. some of those people do, they just don't like his handling of Iraq. Not that it is an easy job, but when people are dying on a daily basis, I think people expect the utmost from their leader.

And I didn't really understand what you were saying past the initial question, perhaps just because I'm hungover. ???

 

[Annie]

An opinion piece that makes sense:

http://www.polipundit.com/

Saturday, June 12, 2004
Never Again

As this story recounts, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122513,00.html they just celebrated Anne Frank's 75th birthday over in Europe.

After reading this article, it again struck me how important it is not only that we ultimately win the global war against Islamo-facsist terrorism, but that we fight the war with the kind of steadfast determination, ruthlessness, and unwavering resolve it so truly requires.

65 years ago, as is the case today, there was a very loud plurality of people, both in Europe and here, who were committed to "peace," but at any possible cost. When the smiling Chamberlain returned from having sold out the Czecks at the Munich Conference, he actually believed he had secured "peace in [his] time." Of course, Chamberlain, like any liberal, was caught in a self-perpetuating conundrum of reality detachment. Less than one year later, the Wehrmacht was rolling through Poland, and World War II had begun.

We are faced with a scenario in which the moral clarity of our options is like crystal, especially when compared to the choices that were presented to PM Chamberlain back in 1938. Unlike Hitler, al-Qaeda has not played coy about their intentions. To the contrary, they already have gone on record http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46577-2001Dec31?language=printer in declaring their design on world domination, through subjugation of all persons who are not radical Wahabbi Muslims.

We simply cannot make the same historical mistake as Chamberlain's folly in Munich. Appeasement back then directly resulted in the worst catastrophie in human history; a conflict in which 50 million persons were killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

Al-Qaeda is not a team of bank robbers or car thieves. This is not a matter for "law enforcement." This is a war. They must be destroyed.

Never again!

posted by Jayson at 10:55 AM Link to this post | Comments (17)

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I think he believes that walmart is the source of evil in the world as it is a big corporation.

Personally, i cant figure out why anyone would be upset over a company offer tens of thousands of jobs nationwide, giving consumers a low price, and making a small profit. But then im just one of them capitalist pigs.

Well, other than the fact that they are anti-union and have actually fired people in the past for successfully creating a union. I can't think of much else....

Oh wait! There was that Dead Peasant Insurance thing that they were all about too... Yup, that would be reason enough for me not to want to shop there... that and all the white trash I see that go in there

 

[Annie]

From War to Walmart? Hmmm, we slipped.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Hey, it was brought up.

I'm just saying why some people (me) do not approve of a store such as Wal-mart for other reasons than just their size.

The size doesn't bother me until it reaches monopoly proportions.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Hey, it was brought up.

I'm just saying why some people (me) do not approve of a store such as Wal-mart for other reasons than just their size.

The size doesn't bother me until it reaches monopoly proportions.

OH me too. Been getting confused between War thread and Chat thread.

 

[brneyedgrl80]