Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Top Chinese general warns US over attack
#41
No, I'm disagree. And I'm disagree with Ken
Quote:The US became a "natural ally" in 1941.
US wasn't natural ally of USSR in 1941, but today situation is quit different. 60 years ago US and USSR were allies due to circumstances, today they are not allies and not enemies due to eloquent guy.
Reply
#42
Wm Wrote:Bush is no idiot,
do you have any proof of this?
Quote:and as the world gets smaller, everyone can become an ally.
cannot argue with it, is is certainly a possibility if the world population is reduced to a few dozen individuals. Is this the plan?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#43
=D> :lol: :lol: :lol: I just love your SoH, mv. :lol: :lol:
Reply
#44
By virtue of Bush being the highest educated President - a Masters of Business from Harvard before entering the office he is by definition well-educated. By virtue of selecting A+ personalities as his associates (The so-called Vulcans) and being able to totally dominate them and get them to follow his lead and to pull together, he has demonstrated his leadership ability. By virtue of unsycophantic acquaintances such as Lannie Davis, an erstwhile Clinton staffer, he is described as brilliant, and the Democrats strategists were warned by those who knew him and worked with him not to underestimate him. The Democrats had no policy issues to use against him (how does an idiot do that to his opposition?) so they used the Clinton ploy of politics of personal destruction. They chose to portray him as limited and not very bright, dominated by those around him. The facts are exactly the opposite - but you are free to buy into the Begala spin machine if you wish to.
Reply
#45
Hah hah hah, mv. Wink1

Russia won't be an ally of the U.S. simply because of pride. They still dream of being a superpower again, so they won't accept a role such as Britain. Which is what people mean when they say that Russia would make a good ally.
Reply
#46
Quote:By virtue of Bush being the highest educated President ... in Harvard...

Let us not confuse Bush Jr. brains with Bush Sr. wallet.

If you insist on bringing up Harvard, what was the first thing Junior did in college? Right, he joined exactly the same club as Kerry, and we do know what Kerry is.

Besides, it is far from certain that intellegence correlates with education, which is basically indocrination in liberal doctrines. Yes, Bush learned how to be PC well...but did he learn anything else?

On Democrats. It is wrong and dangerous to think that everything Democrats say is false; in fact there is no correlation whatsoever between Democrats and Truth. A statement made by a Democrat may be True or False, and there is no way to know which is the case. Thus, if Democrats called Bush an idiot, it does not mean that he is and it does not mean that he is not.

And, finally, on Clinton's brilliance: I remain unconvinced that Lannie Davis was not right after all. Observe that Clinton did get away with humping Monica, and -- ending the jokes now and getting to the point where Bush' idiocy or lack of really matters -- it is unclear if Bush will get away with humping Putty-Poo.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#47
No, mv, you misconstrue... Lannie Davis did not say that Clinton was brilliant. Most people who worked with him think he is a total moral pragmatist and will do virtually anything to avoid getting caught. If anyone thinks he is brilliant - it is only in his Eddie Haskell ability to evade getting caught with his pants down. That he did get caught and keeps doing the same thing shows his IQ.

No, Lannie Davis was talking about his classmate, George W. Bush, who he knew very well from two separate schools. He has been quoted as marveling at Bush's charisma and ability to win any debate over supposedly articulate intellectuals who always came out as the goat when opposing him. He vociferously warned Paul Begalah, Carville, Hillary, Gore, and others not to try to make him out to be stupid, because Bush would revel in that and trot out the whole misunderestimate approach to campaigning. It's amazing that in the first of Bush's first term he mesmerized the entire Democrat brain-trust into working with him to get his agenda accomplished. It was only going into the first congressional elections that they realized he had neutralized every campaign agenda item they had prayed for over the years and yet couldn't get done under Clinton. It was the DNC brain trust that pulled all the Dems from the bipartisan working groups that Bush had set up - abrogating their word, and disassociating them still farther away from their own agenda items.

The only thing that has allowed the "Bush is dumb" concept to circulate has been a willing Mainstream Media. An honest one would have pointed out who has been dumb and who has been smart in the past few years.
Reply
#48
Anonymous24 Wrote:Hah hah hah, mv. Wink1

Russia won't be an ally of the U.S. simply because of pride. They still dream of being a superpower again, so they won't accept a role such as Britain. Which is what people mean when they say that Russia would make a good ally.
Yup, paranoia isn't the only american problem, but narcissism as well. :?
Russia has rational reasons of foreign policy: ruled situation on own borders. Your pride you can insert into your ass.
Reply
#49
Wm Wrote:The only thing that has allowed the "Bush is dumb" concept to circulate has been a willing Mainstream Media

Wm,

please note that I'm not repeating the MSM/Democratic "Bush is dumb" war cry; being fully aware that MSM is worthless and Democrats represent a mix of evil and stupidity way beyond anything Bush can come up with, I instead issue my own "Bush is dumb" warning, and -- unlike MSM's, mine has a foundation.

What Bush is doing is essentially this:

1. He tied up the entire army Iraq, at least for another year, thus effectively removing the teeth from any foreign policy the US may have.
2. Next, assured that he has no army, he managed to get *all* key countries pissed off: China (comes first since this is a Chinese thread) over economy/Taiwan/embargo, Russia over "democratic revolutions", India over support to Pakistan, Pakistan over support to India, Turkey over Kurds,.... I would not bother listing the Eurotrash, they are worthless anyway.
3. Next, he proceeds with his Grand Democracy Lunacy
4. With the first benefit being the US likely kicked out from Central Asia and the local dictatorships giving up on independent games and running to Russia and China for support; cut off of the US forces in Afghanistan becoming a real risk;
5. the second benefit is a set of new "democratic" regimes in CIS states, like Georgia and Ukraine, which seem to be very similar to the old "undemocratic" regimes, just a bit more criminal and corrupt,
6. the third benefit being new democratic-theocratic Shia regime emerging in Iraq (check news from Basra), only --- it seems -- to prove that Bush can beat Carter in the mullahbuilding games,
7. and last but not least, what about the democratic PA regime Bush is building in his spare time?

Evil people would say that Bush is modelling new democracies on his favorite democracies of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but I'm not evil, so I would not suggest this...

I do suspect that his grand goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize ... something Carter has and Clinton wanted and could not get.

and if you think this is sane....
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#50
WmLambert Wrote:By virtue of Bush being the highest educated President - a Masters of Business from Harvard before entering the office he is by definition well-educated.
WmLambert, educating is not equal to adequacy. If some person lack for adequacy, education wouldn't help him. Sometime former actor who sleep during session is better option than educated moron. Reagan had basic adequacy, Bush - so-so, Rice with her Stanford past is dumb as a tree.
Reply
#51
Michael, does pessimissm and cynicism go hand in hand? I wonder which takes precidence over the other? Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#52
----
Reply
#53
Gen. Myers: Russia, China Bullying Smaller Countries
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, July 15, 2005


Quote:WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military officer accused Russia and China on Thursday of "trying to bully" smaller Central Asian nations that host U.S. troops and cooperate with Washington in fighting terrorism.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by a reporter what he thought of a statement last week by a regional alliance, led by China and Russia, calling on the U.S. to set a date for withdrawing forces from bases in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

U.S. forces have used a base in each country since the early days of the war in Afghanistan. Both governments recently have questioned the need for continued U.S. access. Uzbekistan has imposed new limits on U.S. use of its Karshi-Khanabad air base, after the Bush administration spoke critically of Uzbekistan's handling of anti-government rioting in May that killed 200 or more people.

The statement last week by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was interpreted by some as an attempt by Russia and China to push the U.S. out of a region that Moscow regards as historically part of its sphere of influence and in which Beijing seeks a bigger role because of the region's extensive energy resources.

"No, I don't think the Shanghai memo or communique or whatever came out was particularly useful," Myers said. "Looks to me like two very large countries were trying to bully some smaller countries. That's how I view it."

Myers said the U.S. has much to offer that region.

"Security and stability in Central Asia is an important concept, and those who can bring security and stability ought to be welcome in Central Asia," he said.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had not been in contact with his counterparts in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan since they publicly questioned the continued presence of U.S. forces.

Di Rita said the administration was considering its options and he suggested that the U.S. military had enough flexibility to get along without access to the bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

"There's no single installation anywhere in the world that we must have and can't live without, so we'll make adjustments if we're not going to use those installations going forward," Di Rita said.

The spokesman acknowledged that the presence of U.S. forces on Russia's periphery has been sensitive issue.

"It's an issue that does arise when the secretary meets with his Russian counterpart, the U.S. activities in Central Asia," Di Rita said.

"But it's part of our operations in this struggle against violent extremism, and I think the Russians understand that. The same thing applies to our involvement in (the former Soviet republic of) Georgia, which we know is a situation of some anxiety for the Russians."

© 2005 The Associated Press

Just thought this was all relevant. :?
Reply
#54
bh, be careful what spin you pick up and believe, because many sinister people invested much energy to get people who they consider dumb and easily led, to believe such things. Your first mistake was to repeat the canard that Reagan slept during meetings. Never happened. Reagan was famous for always keeping punctuality as a goal for his entire office. He held the office of the Presidency as a an honor and high responsibility and ordered all of his people to maintain 9:00 to 5:00 office hours. Her told them if they needed more time, then they were either not properly using their time, or had inadequate faith in their staff to handle their share of the load. Reagan was known as a fair man, but one who never allowed anyone to shirk work or spread oneself too thin. He never took naps on the job and the entire office laughed whenever the MSM or the DNC made jokes about his "naps". To them, it was a matter of how out of the loop their critics were.

One of the reasons Reagan was able to accomplish so much in a day was his photographic memory, a trait he never spoke about, but used ruthlessly to suss out phoneys and liars who thought they could say anything they could get away with. They wrongfully thought that since Reagan never brought reference materials to meetings, or took notes during meetings, that he wouldn't be able to catch them out if they lied here or there to inflate their points.

Same thing with the Press. They thought that Reagan's orders to get work done by quitting time was because he got tired. They never asked his staff, because they would have explained that good executives must put the work into the right hands, and not try to micromanage everything.

And mv, I disagree with many of Bush's decisions, but have come to recognize that he often does things that look better in hindsight than while being crafted. 90% of his War on Terror is attacking the financing of the terrorists, yet we hear very little of how that is going. You do not know the true happenings in the back rooms of China, Taiwan, and other places, and neither do I. There was much treachery associated with the Clinton gifts of military technology to China and other nations, and exactly how that affects us is a closely guarded secret. Moot?
Reply
#55
Wm Wrote:And mv, I disagree with many of Bush's decisions, but have come to recognize that he often does things that look better in hindsight.

At the moment I find it quiet difficult to image how some of the things he is doing now will look or smell better later...

Wm Wrote:90% of his War on Terror is attacking the financing of the terrorists

Uggh, not this one please. WoT financing appears to belong to the same pile as the Iraqi WMD's.

Quote:You do not know the true happenings in the back rooms of China, Taiwan, and other places, and neither do I.

And neither does Bush, which puts two of us at an advantage: we have the same information, no triple-A advisors, and, likely, better brains.

Quote:There was much treachery associated with the Clinton gifts of military technology to China and other nations, and exactly how that affects us is a closely guarded secret.

I'm certain this is not a secret to Chinese, and perhaps to Russkies as well. Only to us. While we are here, add to the Bush' list his failure to reform intel in time.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#56
In time? Don't be what you evidently think Bush is. It will take an entire generation to ramp up our covert HumInt operatives and equally as long to force out the anti-Intel bureaucrats installed in the 90's who are now protected by Federal workplace discrimination laws - not to mention the government employees' unions. I am heartily appreciative of the efforts to date to compartmentalize the worst of these traitors and get them away from real security. The good guys, like Bolton, are being identified and moved into the corner offices, and the bad ones are being marginalized as quickly, but as quietly as possible.

Did you read Barbara Olsen's book, published after she died on her plane on 9-11? Look at the traps and political landmines that Clinton sowed for his successor - and you tell me what you would have done better - in the face of an antagonistic MSM bent on ruining you and your possible efforts to help the nation. It's easy to say that Foreign relations is bumpy, but many of the bumps you see are there for public consumption.

Yes, if Bush 43 was behaving like his father or Nixon did, while President, he might be screaming at the top of his lungs that he is a victim of traitors - but his role model in the Oval office is not his father - but Ronald Reagan, and the way Reagan handled his detractors is how Bush is determined to handle his.

I think Bush sees the U.S. as the primary military and economic force on the planet, and doesn't buy too many "the-sky-is-falling" fears. Col. Gadaffi rolled over, and others will, too.
Reply
#57
Michael has allowed sTroll to use his name for awhile, until he gets back from vacation. sTroll did this to Bluecat over at the Bear Pit and eventually caused a roe. I suspect the same thing here as well. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#58
John L Wrote:Michael has allowed sTroll to use his name for awhile, until he gets back from vacation. sTroll did this to Bluecat over at the Bear Pit and eventually caused a roe. I suspect the same thing here as well. S6

So it hasn't been 'mv' for the last week. For Christ's sake, I don't know what the hell is going on, but I'll tske your word for it.

Anyhoo, you see that story about China "buying" smaller nations?
Reply
#59
Quote:Anyhoo, you see that story about China "buying" smaller nations?

In a word,.....................no. Do they also get title to it?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#60
Gunnen4u Wrote:Gen. Myers: Russia, China Bullying Smaller Countries
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, July 15, 2005


Quote:WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military officer accused Russia and China on Thursday of "trying to bully" smaller Central Asian nations that host U.S. troops and cooperate with Washington in fighting terrorism.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by a reporter what he thought of a statement last week by a regional alliance, led by China and Russia, calling on the U.S. to set a date for withdrawing forces from bases in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

U.S. forces have used a base in each country since the early days of the war in Afghanistan. Both governments recently have questioned the need for continued U.S. access. Uzbekistan has imposed new limits on U.S. use of its Karshi-Khanabad air base, after the Bush administration spoke critically of Uzbekistan's handling of anti-government rioting in May that killed 200 or more people.

The statement last week by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was interpreted by some as an attempt by Russia and China to push the U.S. out of a region that Moscow regards as historically part of its sphere of influence and in which Beijing seeks a bigger role because of the region's extensive energy resources.

"No, I don't think the Shanghai memo or communique or whatever came out was particularly useful," Myers said. "Looks to me like two very large countries were trying to bully some smaller countries. That's how I view it."

Myers said the U.S. has much to offer that region.

"Security and stability in Central Asia is an important concept, and those who can bring security and stability ought to be welcome in Central Asia," he said.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had not been in contact with his counterparts in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan since they publicly questioned the continued presence of U.S. forces.

Di Rita said the administration was considering its options and he suggested that the U.S. military had enough flexibility to get along without access to the bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

"There's no single installation anywhere in the world that we must have and can't live without, so we'll make adjustments if we're not going to use those installations going forward," Di Rita said.

The spokesman acknowledged that the presence of U.S. forces on Russia's periphery has been sensitive issue.

"It's an issue that does arise when the secretary meets with his Russian counterpart, the U.S. activities in Central Asia," Di Rita said.

"But it's part of our operations in this struggle against violent extremism, and I think the Russians understand that. The same thing applies to our involvement in (the former Soviet republic of) Georgia, which we know is a situation of some anxiety for the Russians."

© 2005 The Associated Press

Just thought this was all relevant. :?

Just thought it held up mv's arguement a bit about them stepping into Central Asia a bit more.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chinese General on War mv 11 4,699 05-17-2005, 08:12 PM
Last Post: Anonymous24

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)