I don't have time to do homework for you. It's your claim, you have to show me. You said someone got killed because he stole some gas. It sounds worse than Saddam Hussein to me. Come on, give me the link. I want to see this story.
The Navy isn't. China would end up invading Davy Jones' locker. I might be horribly wrong, but here's the math as I see it. China can destroy Taiwan, but can't invade or occupy it. We can destroy China, but can't invade or occupy it. Stalemate. If China really wants to nuke us, they'd call in our loans, and make our T-Bills the worthless IOUs that Bush keeps saying they are.
LOL I know. When you think about the situation I drew up, that could turn in WWIII and a real CF for the US and Asia in a hurry. That and the threat of Bird Flu, boy is that scary or what.
Snore... All I have to do is stay black and die. Only fools take the time to compare demonic behaviour. You're a lazy mother********er; it's an Amnesty claim, one among many...look through these...if its not there, look on their site.
Alleged Crime Ab Abduction Heinous Unspecified 'Heinous' crimes Ab/SC Abduction Sale Child Intl I Intentional Injury Ab/SW Abduction Sale Women K Kidnapping Ap Appropriation of public funds Man Manslaughter ArmR Armed Robbery M Murder As/BH Assault and Bodily Harm Porn Pornography B Blackmail Poi Poisoning Bg Bombing P Prostitution/Pimping Big Bigamy Pir Piracy C Corruption R Rape Cd Causing Destruction Rob Robbery CdT Causing Death/Torture Rob/C Robbery of cars Cf Counterfeiting Offences Rob/T Robbery of trains C/R Cattle Rustling S Slave Trade D Drugs trafficking and possession Sm Smuggling E Embezzlement T Theft Ext Extortion Tax Tax / VAT fraud F Fraud Us Unspecified G Gun possession / running / manufacture V Violence ====== Hey, I didn't see gas stealing here....You lied? For one thing, ITN would love to see all these criminals get killed.
Can we please stop the insults ? Mel you seem like a family man to me from what I can tell - would you want your kids to know you talk to people like this ????
Like Walmart would ever let its Wholly-Owned-Subsidiaries (The Chinese government and the US government) do anything that would slow up the container ships from Yantian to Long Beach.
The comments would made by a Chinese General. But since I have read the article, his comments came more from a loose cannon perspective then from the Chinese Govt. How you concluded that the Pentagon is the one posturing here is really not true.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-16-china-nuke_x.htm Beijing downplays general's nuke comment BEIJING (AP) — China tried to quell an uproar Saturday over a general's comment that Beijing might use nuclear weapons against the United States in a conflict over Taiwan, saying the statement was his personal opinion.
This was all clearly staged so we can't totally dismiss the comments. Clearly, China will take a more assertive posture in the future. We are going to need to develop a more realistic and coherent China strategy.
If US interests dictate that it directly and indirectly control, or make sure it can influence, political events around the world, then surely China will have to be "dealt with" somehow down the line. Which is why China is indeed on the medium term bull's eye of neocon strategists, who (after dealing with some more immediate issues) intend to focus on "changing China". On the other hand, if the US interests are truly found in America being an example of good and decent government, without unnecessary foreign entanglements, trading with the world but not dictating to it any terms, then the US is better off taking up an isolations stance. The first posture I outlined is an imperialist one that will cost the US dearly and at the end has uncertain benefits, if any. The second one puts the US back to how it was before WWII, except having now fixed some of its more glaring issues at home.
And in between these extreme positions lies a better course, one which protects our interests (which are not "neutral") and our allies such as Japan without creating a serious conflict with China.
We've heard it all before. Good evening my fellow citizens: This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet Military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. http://www.jfklibrary.org/j102262.htm
Alleged Crime Ab Abduction Heinous Unspecified 'Heinous' crimes Ab/SC Abduction Sale Child Intl I Intentional Injury Ab/SW Abduction Sale Women K Kidnapping Ap Appropriation of public funds Man Manslaughter ArmR Armed Robbery M Murder As/BH Assault and Bodily Harm Porn Pornography B Blackmail Poi Poisoning Bg Bombing P Prostitution/Pimping Big Bigamy Pir Piracy C Corruption R Rape Cd Causing Destruction Rob Robbery CdT Causing Death/Torture Rob/C Robbery of cars Cf Counterfeiting Offences Rob/T Robbery of trains C/R Cattle Rustling S Slave Trade D Drugs trafficking and possession Sm Smuggling E Embezzlement T Theft Ext Extortion Tax Tax / VAT fraud F Fraud Us Unspecified G Gun possession / running / manufacture V Violence I think China is capable of this as well. OH!
So you're saying we should be isolationist so that WWIII happens? Or you're saying we should keep China in our medium term sights so that WWIII doesn't happen? I say we start cutting our trade ties to China until they loosen up their internet and let their currency float. Then we just wait.
Our government has more loose cannons than theirs. We lead the world in every kind of firepower ... loose or otherwise. Just wait until John Bolton gets to make our diplomatic responses. COLD WAR II -- let's get it on!
Business Week has an interesting editorial about this this issue. The writer (his name escapes me now) is convinced that China is less likely to float their currency if we continue to bully them. BTW, it's not entirely clear that this is in our best interest.
World War II was born out of World War I. Basically, an unfair peace that humiliated the Germans, in an "intellectual climate" that promoted racist ideologies even before the rise of the Nazis. If there is any analogy there, it has little to do with the absence of imperialism by the US leading to WWII. It has more to do with certain events right now in the Middle East. I believe that the US can neither afford nor will it benefit from overextending itself on the hubris that it can control the world. It cannot and the process will only lead to WWIII being more likely, not less. We live in a world where, outside the confines of some backward places and some truly fanatical ideologies, the rest of the world intellectually has arrived at the roughly the same answers. Those answers will differ in their coverings and might, in a politicized environment, appear to be mutually exclusive. They are not. Often, they just represent the speed by which those ideas can integrate themselves in various societies, at different levels of development, and with varying cultural imperatives. An isolationist America will do more good than the America that has emerged since Bush took over. Of course, unlike conservative isolationist, the isolationist stance I like to see from the US does not preclude it from being actively involved in helping strengthen international institutions. To help reform, democratize, and stregnthen them to meet the challenges of the international community. But the xenophobic elements in America, as well as those who prefer an imperialistic course for it, are too strong right now for that idea to have a chance. Basically, if America is involved, it will demand to control these international institutions and subvert them into something that will detract from their international legitimacy. As such, and by default, between George W. Bush's image and that offered by the neocons, versus the image of libertarian conservatives as well as the Pat Buchanin nativist wing of the Republican party, I prefer the isolationists over the impierialists.
I'm not sure trade w/ China is in our best interest. Whatever sins we commit by buying oil from the al Saud family we commit many time that amount by buying plastic toys from China. Certainly the current trade relationship isn't in our best interests. I doubt the clarity of the writter of that peice.
I don't believe death penalty would be given to someone who just stole 10 gallon gas from the station. I want you provide me a specific report to verify this.