Who DO They Think The Chinese Will Fight?

From the Wednesday Times:

Bush Says Europe Should Not Lift Its China Arms Embargo

A simmering dispute with Europe came to the forefront on Tuesday when President Bush said there was "deep concern" in the United States that lifting the European Union's arms embargo against China would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan.

Look, I understand that (a) France needs to create jobs for its arms industry, and the Europeans are not much of a customer because no one there actually has a useful military; and (b) France would prefer to play a balancing role in a multi-polar world, so a stronger China is, they think, in their long term interest (especially since they will never have to fight them).

However, I don't see how the US can ever get over the basic question - who do the French think the Chinese will fight?  India?  How is that good for anyone?  Russia?  Disastrous. 

And if the US Seventh Fleet ever has to battle a French-equipped China in a showdown over Taiwan, I don't see how what we smilingly call an "alliance" could survive.

My secret hope is that Democrats will reflexively side with Chirac against Bush on this.  However, this tidbit does not bode well for my Dark Design:

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a resolution by a 411-3 vote that condemned the European Union's plans [to lift the embargo].

And the Times tells us that:

Mr. Bush also told the Europeans that when they settled on their new code of conduct, they needed to "sell it to the United States Congress."

Those should be easy votes.  Whoever is in charge can just say, "All those in favor of France arming our strategic competitors, say aye", and then wait for a pin to drop.

We have ranted about this before.

Comments

[creepy dude]

Hmmm...have you ranted about Loral Space and Communications sending launch technology to China?

Remember in the 90s-all the Clinton-China connections? John Huang anyone? Rush "Junkie" Limbaugh mentioned Loral only slightly less often than he mentioned Clinton's member.

Of course, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith was Loral's lawyer the whole time. Never heard anyone on the right hold it against him. (True, General Franks did call him "the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the Earth" but I don't think that was because of his Loral connections)(and didn't Perle have extensive Loral connections too-ed.).

Of course Israel has sold military technology to China. And when Israel tried to sell the Phalcon radar system to China it was President Clinton himself who told former premier Ehud Barak to knock it off.

Of course, those of you listening to Limbaugh back then wouldn't know any of this, making your secret hope that the Democrats would side with Chirac all the more ignorant.

[creepy dude]

Just to clarify: I see the idiots at Powerline making statements like "The whole mainstream of the [Democratic] party is engaged in an effort that is a betrayal of America."

And then I come check with the blog that I think is the more reasonable right and find the same sentiment...well its downright discouraging.

And to all commenters who will reply with similar quotes of "Bush=Hitler" leftists, stuff it already.

[Gary Maxwell]

Mr Maguirre:

Go ahead and post the names and party affiliation's of the three "no" votes in the congress on the resolution. Let Mr. Creepy Dude see it. Here is my bet, all Democrats. And Democrats the party is proud to include in their tent.

If an ally sells weapons to my enemy, how much of an ally is that? If it puts our troops in a tenuous position and makes the world a more dangerous place, I should not be against it?

[creepy dude]

Well then you're truly an idiot Maxwell-one of the nay votes was a Republican.

[Gary Maxwell]

Boy you blind me with your intellect and sweep me off my feet with your charm. Was that the M Chirac Charm School you attended? Teh pedigree is just so ... obvious.

So was the Republican Ron Paul? He is the only one looney enough to vote no in my opinion.

But here is also a bet on at least one of the following being in the mix, McDermott, McKinney and Lee.

[creepy dude]

House Vote 18: Feb 2, 2005 (109th Congress)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 57 Expressing the strong concern of the House of Representatives that the European Union may end its embargo against the People’s Republic of China -- Passed

Ayes: 411 (95%)

Nays: 3 (1%)

Not Voting: 19 (4%)

Required: 2/3

Nays:

GA-04 Rep. McKinney, Cynthia [D]
MN-08 Rep. Oberstar, James [D]
TX-14 Rep. Paul, Ronald [R]

Jackass.

[creepy dude]

So traitorous Republicans are just looney, whereas traitorous Democrats are...traitorous.

My comments are like a mirror, Maxwell. If an ass looks in, you cannot expect an angel to look out.

[TM]

And then I come check with the blog that I think is the more reasonable right and find the same sentiment...well its downright discouraging.

Well, now, I said I was secretly hoping the Dems would self-destruct on this issue, not that they *were* self-destructing. A House vote of 411-3 struck me as unambiguously bi-partisan.

As to ranting about Loral in the 90's, I'm sure I did.

[creepy dude]

Actually you said "reflexively side with Chirac" which to me means side with someone other than America.

If by "side with Chirac" you meant "self-destruct" the allusion is a little too opaque for me.

Not to jump on you, TM, but really this Democrats are treasonous talk is quite prominent lately. I resent it very personally.

[Matthew Ryan]

"Of course, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith was Loral's lawyer the whole time"

Man, have you got this backwards. Corporations should lobby the gov't to sell everything they can to anybody they can aka capitalism. It's the gov't's job to stop sales when there is a national interest in doing so. It's the gov't's role to mediate between the interests of the corporation and the nation.

So you really think the problem was Loral, a private corporation, wanting to sell its products to any customer with the cash and not the administration that approved such sales?

[Matthew Ryan]

"this Democrats are treasonous talk is quite prominent lately. I resent it very personally"

It took quite awhile for Republicans to get used to the 'greedy, poor hating, racist, science denying scumbag' moniker too. I'm guessing being on the receiving end wasn't as fun as dishing it out over these many years.

[creepy dude]

Meanwhile, lil' ole traitorous me is still waiting for Osama bin Laden to be brought to justice. Who has Bush put in charge of tracking him down -O.J.Simpson?

And Mr. Jaafari, the man that the oh-so left wing National Review quotes Iraqis last May as "a politician who advocates theocracy, accepts money from Iran, and seeks to marginalize the political and social role of Iraq's women" is on track to become the Prime Minister of Iraq.

I fail to see how Democrats determined to be traitorous could do worse.

[TM]

If by "side with Chirac" you meant "self-destruct" the allusion is a little too opaque for me.

And yet you seem quite clear that the Dems *won't* do that, because it would be anti-American. So what was opaque?

[creepy dude]

Matthew Ryan-Reagan decided in 1988 to allow U.S. companies to launch their satellites aboard China's Long March rockets.

Amazing decision by Reagan since we all know the telecommunications industry refuses to give money to Republicans. (sarcasm).

So when these companies (and their shareholders) were not very happy to see their satellites blown up b/c of pisspoor Chinese launch technology, a gap was filled, and the Chinese were sold better launch technology.

Point being- selling out America for money is hardly a Democrat copyright, and it's inane to argue it is.

That's why I raised Feith. The guy who spent the 90s helping Loral to sell us out later becomes the #3 guy in the Pentagon, and Republicans love him (well except General Franks).

Some things are truly bipartisan: greed, idiocy, and hypocrisy.

[Gary Maxwell]

Who has Bush put in charge of tracking him down -O.J.Simpson?

We were thinking of putting Maddy Albreight and Warren Christopher on the case.

Its really killing you that the Democrats have no power whatsoever isn't? Go ahead and call names and otherwise act like McKinney if you want. I nailed two out of three of the No votes. Want to bet on a very high number of not voting being Dems. Surely McDermott will be among them.

Ron Pasul is a loon. We dont want him. Let see if you disown anyone in your so call Party.

[creepy dude]

"It took quite awhile for Republicans to get used to the 'greedy, poor hating, racist, science denying scumbag' moniker too."

Not one of those is a capital offense under the Constitution as is treason.

[creepy dude]

"Want to bet on a very high number of not voting being Dems. Surely McDermott will be among them."

Use Govtrack.us, and quit being a total idiot.

Of the 19 not voting, 10 were Republican and 9 were Democrat.

McDermott voted Aye.

Did I mention you were an idiot?

[Gary Maxwell]

Surely McDermott misunderstood the question. The same guy who stands on Iraqi soil and criticizes the US? He aint to bright but he does fit the definition of a traitor, simply not called to account.

What McKinney? Is she is shining star of the Democrats?

Learn some new insults. The repition of the old ones are growing quite tiresome. I am sure the DUmmies can teach you a few if you hang around there long enough.

[creepy dude]

It's not an insult-it's the truth.

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey Creepy. Chuck Schumer head of the DSCC is quoted in the NY Observer today as being worried about the Dems losing three more Senate seats in 06. Pretty soon all you will have look to for solace is your charm.

Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of folks.

[Matthew Ryan]

"Not one of those is a capital offense under the Constitution as is treason"

Yeah, we've all heard the calls from Republicans to frog march Kennedy out of the Senate and shoot him on the Capital steps.

The point, which you conveniently sidestepped, is that hyperbole is "hardly a (Rebublican) copyright, and it's inane to argue it is". Next time I'm called a racist I'll be sure to be thankful that I haven't been accused of an actual crime.

It's king of odd, though, that the Dems are so sensitive about the treason charge being loosely thrown around. Even if they don't actually use the word, the way they describe the path to war in Iraq involves treasonous activity by the Bush administration. Surely lying a country into a war for profit is Treason 101. So excuse me if we yawn at the hyperventilating of whiny Dems that have had their patriotism questioned.

May I suggest Bush's response? Ignore them. Let the right ratchet up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels. Win in the mid-terms. But you have to let the right think the attacks aren't working. And then you have to hope the right is as irresponsible as the left has been.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

My secret hope is that Democrats will reflexively side with Chirac against Bush on this.

Not up to your usual standard, my friend. Hoping the other side will prove to be traitors for the sake of scoring partisan points is just a bad idea. Because they might actually turn out to be traitors, and then find it is their moment to "fool all of the people some of the time." A more centralist Democratic party might make you nuts, becaue the American people might be tempted to vote for them, but it would certainly be the best antidote for the fiscally irresponsible torture boys who now run the GOP.

[creepy dude]

"Surely lying a country into a war for profit is Treason 101."

Quite the contrary,Matthew. Really you need to pay more attention to your colleagues.

It was the Democrats opposing the war- that was the real Treason.

[Forbes]

All right, everyone take a deep breath, and then exhale slowly.

I'd say that TM's point was the 411-3 vote was bipartisan, and perhaps, just perhaps, it could allow the Dems to take an active role, vis-a-vis the Eurpoean (French) sale of military gear to China, regarding US foreign and defense policy, which could be viewed in the national, as well as the Dems, interest.

Now, have at it. :)

[Matthew Ryan]

"fiscally irresponsible torture boys"

I almost had the vapors. I thought you were going to accuse the Bushies of treason!

"It was the Democrats opposing the war- that was the real Treason"

Please show your work. Which prominent Republicans said that opposing the Iraq war was by itself treasonous?

[capt joe]

Hey, creepy, is your dialectic technique limited to the terms "idiot and jackass".

I suggest night courses.

[creepy dude]

Not at all Capt Joe, you sad buffoon.

[creepy dude]

Ryan-here's three off the top of my head, mostly b/c they're recent:

Instapundit calls Kennedy "borderline traitorous" for saying we should leave Iraq.

Powerline notes Jimmy Carter is silent on the Iraq elections and charges he's "on the other side."

Fred Barnes says Bush ought to clarify "what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq."

[Gary Maxwell]

Congratulations you succeeded where I failed. You got the robot refugee from DU to increase his vocabulary. Another insult yes, and well no real ability to argue other than cut and paste form somewhere else but hey small progress is, well, small progress nonetheless.

[creepy dude]

And how could I forget the bestselling "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" by Ann Coulter.

[TM]

I would like to thank Forbes for the "exhale slowly" suggestion.

I should also note that I have occasionally suggested, quite seriously, that a revived centrist Dem Party would be good for the country. I have no interest in a one-party system, and I am not thrilled with our current 1 1/2 party system.

Now, as much as I hate to invoke the painfully overdone "I was kidding" defense", there were some hidden clues that might have suggested I was not completely serious.

For example, "secret hope" and "my Dark Design" *might* have been tip-offs. Or not. (Do folks really think I have that much power?)

NOTE: From a recent post:

...If the left blogosphere decides to rouse itself for a march towards the center, it may well revive a similar instinct in the Democratic Party. That would, in my humble opinion, be good for the country.

[spencer]

Why are you so worried about the French when our own military has outsourced so much of its equipment purchases to firms that depend on Chinese components?

How can we fight them when the US military needs their supplies?

[Matthew Ryan]

Instapundit = Republican? You better let him know. And if your quote is accurate it stops short of accusing Kennedy of treason, doesn't it?

Powerline isn't a person. It's a blog with three contributors. I do recall the quote you've used but the reason for the quote isn't what you say it is.

Your Fred Barnes quote is accusing exactly who of treason?

[creepy dude]

But you have to give me Coulter.

Re: Instapundit. Actions speak louder than words. If you voted for Bush, you're a Republican.

As for powerline-it was the guy with the borderline-gay name, Hindrocket.

The Barnes quote is a little weird, but I don't pretend to understand the Republican mind. Tell me what exactly is "out of bounds" and I'll tell you who's being treasonous.

[creepy dude]

P.S. What was the reason for saying President Carter is "on the other side"?

[Cecil Turner]

Propaganda and PsyOps is an important part of warfare. Especially in a situation where one side is much stronger militarily (as is the case with almost any scenario involving the US military), the only way for the weaker side to win is to sap the will of the stronger. The techniques aren't complex, and were practiced to good effect in both WWI and WWII, and practically perfected in Vietnam.

If I were a propagandist for Al Qaeda, putting together a list of propaganda goals I'd like help with (from Western allies, or useful idiots), it'd look something like:

• America is fighting an illegitmate war;
• US leadership is incompetent and corrupt;
• US military is despicable and weak;
• US military regularly commits war crimes;
• US casualties are high and pointless;
• Victory is impossible;
• The American people do not support the war; and,
• The US should quit.
  (There are more, but those are probably the biggest.)

All too often, Democrats holding forth on the war manage to hit most of them. And our national media seem to believe those sorts of statements are particularly newsworthy. I suspect most of them are just clueless.

Now I'd probably agree that some on the right use the "T" word too freely. But it'd sure be nice to see some self-discipline from the left. And, in particular, a commitment to putting the "loyal" back into "loyal opposition."

[Matthew Ryan]

"If you voted for Bush, you're a Republican."

Right. But admit it. You said Republican but you thought Nazi.

"it was the guy with the borderline-gay name, Hindrocket"

I'll be sure to pass that on to my friends at 7th period recess. They love a good gay joke.

As to the substance, it wasn't Carter's silence that got Hindrocket's goat. It was the discouraging statements that Carter made in September re. the election that prompted the comment. Isn't Carter supposed to be promoting democracy instead of discouraging it? I think Hindrocket is overreaching but this had nothing to do with Carter as war critic and everything to do with Carter's saying that Iraq would not be ready for an election in January even as Americans and Iraqis were literally dying to achieve that goal.

[creech]

Does anyone think the U.S. should fight China over Taiwan?? Better to let the Taiwanese develop a nuclear weapon (if they haven't already). If China doesn't want to restrain their buddies, the North Koreans, why should the U.S. restrain Taiwan? And if they start lobbing nucs at each other, then the U.S. should stay the hell out of it.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

I plead guilty to not having read your earlier post. Forgive me -- this loyal reader was vacationing in Italy. Nevertheless, sometimes humor is a tool for softening a hard-edged sentiment. (I have been known to do that myself.) I just didn't know whether your GOP partisanship (hope the opposition makes idiots of themselves) was outrunning your patriotism (the consequences of 40% of the nation following the likes of Cynthia McKinney). Not being yoked to a particular political party at this stage, I really do not care what party is in control as long as they appear to be addressing what needs to be addressed.

So, glad you took your long exhale

[antiphone]

But admit it. You said Republican but you thought Nazi.

Thought crime!

[Cecil Turner]

"And if the US Seventh Fleet ever has to battle a French-equipped China in a showdown over Taiwan, I don't see how what we smilingly call an "alliance" could survive."

If the Seventh Fleet gets involved, the most important equipment issues will be submarines and aircraft (particularly submarines), the newer types of which are predominantly supplied by Russia--but I suspect that won't be a primary topic when Bush meets with Putin. The sale of German diesel subs would be more of a concern than any French equipment I can think of.

[antiphone]

If I were a propagandist for Al Qaeda, putting together a list of propaganda goals I'd like help with (from Western allies, or useful idiots), it'd look something like...

CT- I bet that list just keeps growing, on an as needed basis. Wouldn’t it be simpler to put all criticism of the government off limits until permanent world peace has been achieved?

[Cecil Turner]

"CT- I bet that list just keeps growing, on an as needed basis."

Yeah, I just made all that stuff up. Here are some leaflets from WWII designed by the Germans to demoralize soldiers. The themes are: casualties; leadership corrupt/hopeless war; surrender; US should quit; Victory is impossible. Here's a pamphlet on the Cologne air attack. Themes: wanton destruction and military ineffectiveness; violating international law (gotta like war crimes lectures from the Nazis--heh); we shall overcome:

The enemy will always attack this German bastion of strength in vain. All that his brutal and senseless destructive desire will accomplish is to build a hatred in the German people that they have never felt before, a growing hatred that sooner or later will destroy him who has caused it.

Not really, those themes are all pretty generic--they've stood the test of time. Some change a bit with the conflict (e.g., Here's Saddam's for the first Gulf War--note the "corrupt Arab leaders" as allies bit--though it's still an attempt at delegitimizing), but the basics are making your side fight harder and hurting the opponent's morale. Uncle Ho was good at it:

. . . they can use thousands of aircraft to intensify the war of destruction against North Vietnam, but they cannot shake our heroic Vietnamese peoples’ iron will and determination to struggle against U.S. aggression for national salvation. The more aggressive they are, the more serious their crimes. The war may last for another five, ten, twenty years or longer . . . but the Vietnamese people will remain unafraid.

Oooh, I forgot one: the "forever war" --it's kinda a corollary to "victory is impossible," but probably deserves its own bullet.

"Wouldn’t it be simpler to put all criticism of the government off limits until permanent world peace has been achieved?"

Yeah, [sigh] I realize asking for self-discipline is unrealistic. It'd be nice to see folks try. (Or at least stop cheerleading for the enemy.)

[antiphone]

However, I don't see how the US can ever get over the basic question - who do the French think the Chinese will fight? India? How is that good for anyone?

That’s a good question.

(AFP) Oct 15, 2003

The United States sells more arms than any other country, and Saudi Arabia leads the world for buying arms among developing countries, a report from the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) said Wednesday.

The United States holds a 40.3 percent market share in arms sales, raking in 10.241 billion dollars (8.8 billion euros) from sales in 2002, according to the IISS annual report "The Military Balance 2003-2004", on arms around the world.

Saudi Arabia spent an estimated 5.2 billion dollars in 2002 buying weapons, despite having reduced arms purchases from the 1995-1998 period, the report said.

Britain, the world's second-largest arms seller, sold 4.7 billion dollars worth of weapons in 2002 and has a 18.5 percent market share. It is followed by Russia (3.1 billion dollars and 12.2 percent market share) and Francebillion dollars and 7.1 percent market share).

China comes fifth down the list selling 800 million dollars worth of arms in 2002 (3.1 percent market share), followed by Ukraine at 600 million dollars (the report did not publish the country's market share), Germany at 500 million dollars (two percent market share) and Italy at 400 million dollars (1.6 percent market share).

Israel, the world's ninth-largest arms seller, brought in 300 million dollars from sales in 2002, followed by Brazil at 200 million dollars.

Following on the heals of Saudi Arabia, Egypt was the second-largest buyer of arms among developing countries, spending 2.1 billion dollars in 2002.

Kuwait was in third at 1.3 billion dollars, followed by China (1.2 billion dollars) and Taiwan (1.1 billion dollars).

The Arab Emirates and India each spent 900 million dollars on weapons.

Israel spent 700 million dollars on weapons purchases abroad in 2002, followed by South Korea and Pakistan which each spent 600 million dollars. Saudi Arabia has recently slowed its weapons purchases, buying 26.6 billion dollars in arms in 1999-2002 compared to 38 billion in

Israel has stepped up is purchases, buying 4.3 billion dollars in weapons in 1999-2002, compared to 2.9 billion in 1995-1998.

[antiphone]

Sorry CT, I didn’t mean to step on your reply, we both seem to have posted at the same time. The fact that propaganda and PsyOps have been commonly used in war does nothing to legitimize the practice. When it happens in a civilian context, is referred to as fraud and lying. If we are worried about incorrect information being disseminated by enemies our best defense is the truth not bigger, louder lies.

In a healthy democracy a political party that goes too far in exploiting real and potential dangers and tries to make its own interests completely synonymous with the national security should expect opposition to the practice. If they over react to that opposition, calling it treason they have crossed a line separating democratic competition from totalitarian demagoguery.

[TM]

But you have to give me Coulter.

Only if you take Maureen, too, both for a writer to be named later.

I am going to re-edit ny earlier comment - my attempt at HTML obviously blew up.

[Cecil Turner]

"The fact that propaganda and PsyOps have been commonly used in war does nothing to legitimize the practice."

Wishing it weren't so won't make it go away.

"If we are worried about incorrect information being disseminated by enemies our best defense is the truth not bigger, louder lies."

Truth is good. But showing the same C-130 being blown up from several different angles (one of the more famous Vietnam examples), while true, isn't helpful. Likewise a ridiculous over-emphasis of Abu Ghraib (the American version, not the widespread torture and mass-murder that took place there under Saddam) is counterproductive.

And "incorrect" is a matter of opinion. In fact, propagandists rarely tell bald-faced lies:

Truth is also an important tool for the propagandist, and skillful analysts can extract factual information from propaganda messages. Vladamir Lenin once said, "In propaganda, truth pays off," and propagandists have long recognized that they must avoid lying. . . ."The truth that pays off is in the realm of facts. The necessary falsehoods, which also pay off, are in the realm of intentions and interpretations.

"In a healthy democracy a political party that goes too far in exploiting real and potential dangers and tries to make its own interests completely synonymous with the national security should expect opposition to the practice."

And a political party blind to the negative effect its own rhetoric has on national defense in wartime can expect to get its members voted out of office. As it has done.

[Aaron]

More name calling in comments than discussion of the actual issue.

I live in Taiwan, so we get full coverage of all the stupid things Europeans and Chirac say when they are in China. Solana was classis, saying that international arms sales are bad. But then saying, the EU would sell anyways.

What worries me more than EU sales of arms to China, is that Taiwan refuses to pass the legislation to buy the US arms that we offered years ago...including subs, etc.!

If they won't arm themselves, then what's the use?

[TJ Jackson]

Actually we should be pleased if the French choose to arm themselves with French technology. It is quite second rate and any country with the money will not utilize it if alternatives exist. We'd be in far greater trouble if the Japanese sent their defense related technology to the PRC.

[TM]

As to the US being the world's largestarms dealer, well.. We're Number One!

But what is your point? I am guessing we are not selling arms to likely adversaries. Saudi Arabia is obviously tricky because of Israel on one hand, and Iran (as well as Iraq, until recently) on the other.

And there are plenty of countries to which we could sell arms and I would be delighted. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, European countries... what does it mean?

None of that excuses the French and Germans arming the Chinese.

[max]

Mr Feelfree2becreepy:

Did anyone ever tell you that you make more friends with smiles than with frowns?

Just asking.

max

[The Kid]

Propaganda and PsyOps are legitimate and essential tools in war. The preeminent example is the Doolittle raid on Tokyo. It damaged no significant infrastructure, all planes were lost, but it boosted the morale of US citizens and warfighters at a low point in the war in part by proving that the Japanese homeland was vulnerable. The latter point was not lost on the Japanese either.

And forget about Taiwan. When the Chinese have enough platforms carrying supersonic cruise missiles, hypersonic torpedoes, and the like, they’ll control the sea lanes out to Australia.

[creepy dude's mom]

Max-

rest assured that lil' creepy will not repeat his rude outbursts. We've already put him to bed. A reading from Rush's magnum opus "See I Told You So" always put him right out.
But tomorrow I'm sure he'll apologize to you personally.

jackass.

[antiphone]

I am guessing we are not selling arms to likely adversaries. Saudi Arabia is obviously tricky because of Israel...

Israel may have a bad habit of reselling what they "buy" from us, with the aid we provide them, to China

NYTimes:

For years, China's trade has been dominated by Russia. Israel is China's second-largest supplier, and its role has particularly troubled American experts because it specializes in technologically advanced equipment, like drone aircraft.

Such equipment, the United States worries, could tilt the security balance between China and Taiwan. Washington has supplied Taiwan with enough armaments to discourage Chinese attack.

Neither Russia nor Israel observes the embargo, which was imposed after China's leadership massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. France and Germany do observe it, but even so are believed by some experts to be the next largest suppliers to China, though with much smaller sales.

Then there’s the Bush family, take uncle Bucky:

L.A. Times:

The Iraq war helped bring record earnings to St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc., and new financial data show that the firm's war-related profits have trickled down to a familiar family name — Bush.

William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, uncle of the president and youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, cashed in ESSI stock options last month with a net value of nearly half a million dollars.

"Uncle Bucky," as he is known to the president, is on the board of the company, which supplies armor and other materials to U.S. troops. The company's stock prices have soared to record heights since before the invasion, benefiting in part from contracts to rapidly refit fleets of military vehicles with extra armor...

...The company describes itself as "a diversified supplier of high-tech, integrated military electronics, support equipment and logistics services for all branches of America's armed forces and certain foreign militaries."...

...With about 3,500 employees, some stationed in Iraq, ESSI's North America operations stretch from Nova Scotia to Florida. Most recently the company announced its purchase of Spacelink International LLC, a Virginia military contractor, for $150.5 million.

SEC filings also cite major contracts with the military in Saudi Arabia and China.

[Cecil Turner]

""Uncle Bucky," as he is known to the president, is on the board of the company, which supplies armor and other materials to U.S. troops. The company's stock prices have soared to record heights since before the invasion, benefiting in part from contracts to rapidly refit fleets of military vehicles with extra armor..."

"Uncle Bucky" is selling materiel to US troops? The frickin' nerve of that guy!

Seriously antiphone, is there some point to this nonsense? Is it absolutely necessary to play politics with every national defense discussion? And can you see how the Dem tendency to do just that might be interpreted as less than perfectly patriotic?

[antiphone]

CT, do you have a filter that prevents you from reading certain information?

SEC filings also cite major contracts with the military in Saudi Arabia and China.

I think you’re a little quick to assume that looking at as much relevant information as possible to get an understanding of the state of international arms dealing is “playing politics”. There are many rationalizations for selling advanced weapons around the world and there are huge amounts of money to be made. It’s not an unregulated market, political influence is the key to doing business so it should come as no surprise that patronage and insider dealing is widespread.

When foreign governments want to sell arms they can point to what we do. Americans really need more information than what politicians provide in attack ads during campaign season. Patriotism is not the act of surrendering all responsibility to one of two brands as represented by the two parties. People have to do their homework to learn how things actually work, it’s not always pretty but the alternative is to mouth hollow words about democracy, transparency and the free press while practicing a don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue policy. This applies regardless of party affiliation. The people are ultimately responsible in a democracy, our interests trump the interests of political parties.

[TM]

Creepy - when you are speaking to one of the pre-eminent lefties in the blogosphere, I am begging you - try something other than "jackass".

Max is a font of good advice, and his formulation ("you make more friends with smiles than with frowns") waaay beats mine, which is "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

I mean, folks always come back to me with, "waddya gonna do with a bunch of flies, anyway", and I am stumped. So I smack 'em. And then where am I? No flies, no honey, no vinegar, no friends...

[Towering Barbarian]

CreepyDude,
"If you voted for Bush, you're a Republican."

So every stray independent who decided to vote for the GOP in 2004 is now ours? o_O

Thanks for giving us the elections of 2006, 2008 and all the other elections for our lifetime! ^-^

[narciso]

You want an example on how easy the campaign to root out
Bin Laden, would be, if we didn't have the inconvenience
of Iraq; eh; well let's look at the history in one province; Waziristan; fom one recent main reference; which is based several contemporanaeous sources; Alan
Warren's, Waziristan; The Faquir & the Indian Army; The
NorthWest Frontier Revolt of 1936-37. (the Faquir was a
local religiously motivated insurgent leader; during what could be considered the fourth of the major British
wars in the Afghan/Indian perifery;)as background events in 1901-1902 during one incursion against the Mahsud tribe; "From November 1901 to the end of blockade; Indian Army losses were 32 killed and 114 wounded . . .68 killed, 129 wounded. (n74; from Davies,
C.C. The Problem of the NorthWest Frontier; 1890-1908;
Cambridge; 1932.) "Sixty three men were killed and 166
were injured on a 23 April 1860 attack on the Palosin camp. . .33 men were killed and 86 wounded forcing the
Barai camp in May 1860" This was out of a force of 5,000 men, 100 were killed and 261 were wounded. (n 89; Cardew, F.G. Bengal Native Army Calcutta; 1860. )A generation later, in 1881,' 8 & 24 out of 8531,. . .1894
45 & 75 wounded out of 11,150 men. . .Tochi Valley in 1897, 29 & 61, out of 8,000'In the spring of 1917, during that little thing, called the First World War, around the time, the Russians bailed out, and the Americans came in " a convoy was attacked . . .(n. 86.
Howell, Mizh (a monograph on one Waziri tribe, by a long serving British colonial officer who rose to the
rank of India's foreign secretary,' a friend who reviewed it characterized it as "what a waste"
casualities included two british officers, fifty three
sepoys (Indian soldiers) Then there's the Third Afghan War; which was fought almost entirely in Waziristan

[Cecil Turner]

"CT, do you have a filter that prevents you from reading certain information?"

No, I saw that part. Quite a bit down the road from "Uncle Bucky" though, now wasn't it? And again, what could possibly be the point of that diatribe, except to hit one of the time-honored propaganda memes (i.e., "US leadership is incompetent and corrupt")? If your goal was other than to get in a cheap shot at Bush by using his uncle's connection to a company (whose main source of income is apparently US defense, but apparently has some other defense dealings--presumably legal and approved--with other countries). Did I misinterpret your motive?

"Patriotism is not the act of surrendering all responsibility to one of two brands as represented by the two parties."

Nobody's asking you to. But neither is cherry-picking a completely silly Bush family non-connection in order to make a non-point that serves no purpose (except possibly to further enemy propaganda) patriotic. In fact, it's perilously close to "un" patriotic.

[antiphone]

neither is cherry-picking a completely silly Bush family non-connection in order to make a non-point that serves no purpose (except possibly to further enemy propaganda) patriotic. In fact, it's perilously close to "un" patriotic.

That’s an interesting standard. You may consider that information to be insignificant, you’re free to make that case. But why is it fine for the Bush family to behave this way if the simple act of reporting it provides propaganda for the enemy? If this were true it would be necessary to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, to avoid providing enemies with “propaganda ammunition”. By your reasoning uncle Bucky is profiting not just by selling arms to China and Saudi Arabia but also providing material for enemy propaganda in the process. What’s patriotic about that?

[creepy dude]

TM-the "creepy" is not superfluous.

[Cecil Turner]

"But why is it fine for the Bush family to behave this way if the simple act of reporting it provides propaganda for the enemy?"

"[B]ehave this way"? What way? Is it improper for millionaires to have defense holdings? How many millionaires don't? Do we really want our stockholders to divest from defense companies in wartime? Why?

And it's not "the simple act of reporting it." It's taking one fact (i.e., Bush's uncle holds stock in a defense company that sells arms) and using it to insinuate that the "Bush family" is profiteering. (Which, of course implies that the war is being fought for monetary gains for Bush cronies, and so is illegitimate, and they'll make it go on forever to keep the gravy train going, ad nauseam.) Which is again right out of the propagandists' playbook: "The truth that pays off is in the realm of facts. The necessary falsehoods, which also pay off, are in the realm of intentions and interpretations."

How about a "no blood for oil" cheer? Throw in a bit about how the neocons are fighting the war for Israel, BushCheney lied us into war for Halliburton profits, and we're losing. That way you could hit most all of 'em all in one paragraph. And how dare anyone question your patriotism?

[antiphone]

"The truth that pays off is in the realm of facts. The necessary falsehoods, which also pay off, are in the realm of intentions and interpretations."

I think it’s necessary to remind you that the topic of this thread is arms dealing. I brought up some information to demonstrate the complexity of the problem, including some degree of hypocrisy or at the very least the appearance of hypocrisy. You read a lot of insinuations into this:

it's not "the simple act of reporting it." It's taking one fact (i.e., Bush's uncle holds stock in a defense company that sells arms) and using it to insinuate that the "Bush family" is profiteering. (Which, of course implies that the war is being fought for monetary gains for Bush cronies, and so is illegitimate, and they'll make it go on forever to keep the gravy train going, ad nauseam.) Which is again right out of the propagandists' playbook:

These insinuations are yours not mine and as to my patriotism, by all means question it if you think it serves a purpose. I think it’s an act of weakness and demonstrates your own inclination to propagandize, not mine. I think you’re too willing to demonize anyone who you perceive as representing partisan opposition (that’s a judgment I make based my understanding of your arguments, not your personal motivation).

From my point of view you are willing to abandon functional democracy for the supposed advantage this would provide in warfare. You see the right of the people to make decisions on matters of war and peace as a threat to the war, if forced to choose between the two you, would prefer the war to democracy. You would trust an elite to decide what’s best because you don’t trust public opinion. If those are your values, I don’t share them. If you want to define those values as the essence of patriotism go right ahead. I support your right to do so.

[Cecil Turner]

"I think it’s necessary to remind you that the topic of this thread is arms dealing."

Specifically, the EU selling naval arms to the Chinese. But the comments were predominantly about treason, and the specific comment I made was about propaganda, which you took issue with.

"These insinuations are yours not mine and as to my patriotism, by all means question it if you think it serves a purpose."

Okay [for the third time], what was the purpose of the long "Bush family" excerpt, starting with "uncle Bucky" and ending with "China"?

"From my point of view you are willing to abandon functional democracy for the supposed advantage this would provide in warfare."

I'm not sure how refraining from parroting enemy propaganda is "abandon[ing] functional democracy." Nor do I think there's any real doubt that it provides a real advantage in warfare. Further, I'd think by now any rational observer would conclude that it wasn't very profitable politically. I admit being baffled by the self-destructive behavior, but if you insist on the right to continue it, go ahead. However, you probably ought not to be terribly surprised when people question your patriotism, or that your party loses votes because of it.

[max]

TM - Thanks, I know you meant well, but am I a typeface? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:font . In any event my words (and yours) of attempted wisdom appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

Creepycrawlerdude - We all know 'creepy' is not superfluous; however, given your well-known 'posting charm', it is redundant.

max

[TM]

Oh, my, I've actually used "font" twice today - what's the rule, misuse a word twice and it's lost forever?

[max]

TM - Don't worry too much (or at all) - font comes from fountain, which is a reasonable substitute for source. In fact be proud - it's a nice example of language growing logically, even if directed at an illogical dude.

max

[Aaron]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564165.shtml

You mean Uncle Buckey armed these Saudis?

My, that is just horrible.

[creepy dude]

Max-let's see on this thread I called the Powerline guys idiots for this statement:

"The whole mainstream of the [Democratic] party is engaged in an effort that is a betrayal of America."

If you agree with that fine, read no further.

Maxwell then asserted without looking that all three votes aginst a resolution calling on the EU to maintain an arms embargo would be Democrats.

That was wrong, and proclaiming it a priori renders him an idiot.

Maxwell then asserted without looking the majority of no votes would be Democrat and McDermott would be one.

Again wrong, and the repeated a priori assertion confirms his idiocy.

Indeed, Maxwell is a poster boy for the "Dems are traitors (but I have no proof)" crap which was the topic of my first post on this thread.

Whoever else I spewed invective upon certianly deserved it I'm sure.

Then you come with your kind words. Hey I thought you were Maxwell. So I'm an idiot too.

Your site is great. Keep up the good work.

Jackass.

[creepy dude]

Just kidding.

[Cecil Turner]

"Whoever else I spewed invective upon certianly deserved it I'm sure."

Apropos of nothing, I want to go on record lamenting the demise of the terms "whom" and "whomever." That's two missed opportunities in one thread, surely a bigger issue than "font." (Sorry for picking on yours, CD, the post title is the standout, and I was biting my tongue earlier.)

[creepy dude]

You're right CT.

Now I really feel dumb.

[Cecil Turner]

Nah, nobody uses it anymore. It must be considered archaic. Do they even teach it in school?

[creepy dude]

No excuse. My grandmother was an English teacher.

That's why I never lay down; I always lie.

[TM]

Re: "Whomever" - whatever.

As to "whom", hmm.

[Cecil Turner]

I knew the Mad Punster (TM) couldn't possibly resist.

[max]

CreeepyCrawlerDude - I knew you'd like the site.

Max

PS - How do you happen to have a sense of humor? So many Benedict Arnolds in-waiting don't seem to.

[creepy dude]

Irish grandmother, though I must say most Chimpy McFlightsuit-buttkissers lack one as well.

[max]

Irishdude,

1. Since you didn't include nazi in your McFlightsuit diatrabe you have been promoted from creepy to Irish. Congratulations.

2. ALL of President McChimpyWshrubWflightsuitWmissionaccomplishedWmisunderestimateddubyadent's fans on this board have a great sense of humor.

max (Go dubya)

[Buy Generic Viagra]

Buy Lowest Price
Generic Viagra

Buy Generic Viagra 100mg Pill as low as $ 1.27 Per Pill

Buy Generic Cialis 20mg Pill as low as $ 1.50 Per Pill

Buy Generic Viagra