Of course we were all tense leading up the 9/11 this year, as we are every year after 2001. We hope and pray that some looney so-called terrorist won't decide to detonate something, anything, and hurt people.

I have a stake in this because my son is in Iraq... in a hot spot... but that isn't what this thread is about.

I started a few threads in the forums of my own site, and just when I think I've heard it all regarding 9/11, I got a post with a link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24638

You all probably know by now that I'm a right leaning moderate. I'm not a huge GWB fan, but I despise Clinton and all that he stands for. During the 2000 election when Gore was running, he made many many mistakes verbally. He, in my opinion, made himself look bad negating the need for GWB to do that for him.

When I ran across the above link, I was stunned. I have done my share of research, and I did read the 9/11 commission report. Reading stuff like this link makes me realize that most of the politicians that we employ are not worth the dust that they were created from.

I don't know where we go from here... Another stark almost reality: China WILL attack Taiwan. Since we have a protection agreement with Taiwan, that means we will be fighting China. Since Russia and China are in kahoots... does that mean we will also be fighting Russia in the future?

This post is all over the place I realize.... but I wanted to see what you all thought about a few things:
1) Realisms about Gore and Clinton (old stuff I know, but relevant to today)
2) Realisms about Bush and Cheney (please no negatism that can't be factually backed up)
3) We are going down the road towards a real global war with China/Russia......

Thanks for reading this fuzz....

I know our Internet bandwidth is much slower than Japan's average high-speed connections of 25Mbps connections mostly because George has himself constantly fooling around with us with same-sex & anti-abortion issues and his unwholesome (as I view it from a historical perspective/ following in the wake and capitalizing on the kind of evil- [yes, my own personal opinion tells me, especially after how that old fart handled Katrina, that this whole family is pretty damn stingy and evil] -his father promoted just so maybe we could have more "oil"? Cars don't die (and can't be fixed) because they ran out of oil.. People die for it and it's not right, whether or not it's been more-or-less heavily veiled behind "The war on terror", I mean, c'mon.. Why couldn't we just walk away with a win/win after the numerous "clean" WMD inspections? I honestly believe we woudl've had much better efficiency in nabbing these terrorists with special forces/ feds rather than bombing them to hell and dropping a few hundred thousand men for the angry civilians to shoot (and maybe, just occasionally, maybe a few terrorists too)..
On to the point about the internet though, I'm not here to debate "the war" I've been seeing all along as a huge diminishing return in terms of our national economy, everything.. I'm not tryign to say ("we helped this man trick us so bad into electing him and he's f- us up good now") but a rash string of nationally-foolish political decisions have done such damage to even us, I debate whether or not those "terrorists" could actually ever do the hundreds of billions in damage our heads in office have..


-But really, our broadband connections are still "Clinton speed", -as in our national high-speed bandwidth is largely capped at 3-5Mbps because George bush hasn't even really gotten involved in much local affairs with most of us living here anyway, thus he hasn't signed any major fiber optical plan as Clinton did in 99-2000 with Cable/DSL..
Just making a point on Realisms. No offences intended to anyone (unnecessarily) taking any mention of the truth here personally as "offensive".

Quote: Originally Posted by Splitter This post is all over the place I realize.... but I wanted to see what you all thought about a few things: 1) Realisms about Gore and Clinton (old stuff I know, but relevant to today) 2) Realisms about Bush and Cheney (please no negatism that can't be factually backed up) 3) We are going down the road towards a real global war with China/Russia......

I'm not a fan of either administration, but I do find it interesting that you didn't include the phrase "please no negatism that can't be factually back up" when asking for an opinion on the Clinton/Gore administration...(remember, I was a dyed-in-the-wool, straight-party-voting Republican until 2003). Why not amend that to include both administrations, just in the interest of fairness?

As far as the war with China, I've been saying that since 1992 when I was able to sit with with an Admiral for lunch during boot camp in Orlando. We began a discussion of the world's military, where the next threat is coming from, and why. Ever since then, I've done extensive personal research on the subject. Up until about a year or two ago, the ability for the PRC to attack Taiwan was commonly known as the "million man swim". That is, until they started to purchase huge surpluses of both amphib ships and diesel submarines from the Russians. The only reason why I believe the Russians are selling them their old Navy is to ausage fears that they Chinese may expand north through Mongolia into Russia.

Clinton made it clear in 1998 when he visited the PRC by expressing what has become known as "the three no's". The "three nos," stated by Clinton during his visit to China in 1998, are: No support for an independent Taiwan; no recognition of "two Chinas" or one China and a separate Taiwan; and no support for Taiwan's admission to international organizations that require members to be states. He stated this in an effort to calm Beijing; however, Beijing stepped up its military spending four fold since.

In his last trip to the PRC, Bush expressed to Beijing that the US has a one-China policy but he did mention that the US does have a moral and legal obligation to support Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. This means that the US will provide all available military support to Taiwan should the mainland attack. Not necessarily men, but equipment definately.

Why do I think that they wish to attack Taiwan? Is it a sense of national unity? That there can only be one China?

No. I firmly believe that the main reason why they wish to attack Taiwan is because it has become a source of embarassment among the party leaders in Beijing. Taiwan is a shining example that China can be prosperous by embracing democracy, exposing communism to be a lie. Beijing wishes to stamp out that truth before too many of the populous starts to wake up and realize that they've been lied to all along.

Personally, I believe that the Truman Doctrine applies, in some sort of a legal sense. The US has an obligation to confront the spread of communism in the interest of peace and democracy in the world. Although we fail in recognizing Taiwan as an independent state (even though the people of Taiwan voted for it en masse), we must at least recognize that these people wish to become an autonomous democratic state. An attack from the PRC is an attack on the right for people to self-govern themselves.

Where would we be today if not the French had not supported us during the American Revolutionary War? Sure, we give the French a lot of self-deserved crap, but they did step up (even though it was in their own self-interested at the time to do so) and they provided assistance to the colonials in gaining our independance. We should thank the French and we have time and time again (can you say World War I and World War II?).

Is it going to cost countless lives? Yes. Could it possibly turn nuclear? Yes. Do we need to step up to the plate to back up our words that the right for people to elect for themselves a free and democratic society is in the interest of a better world? Yes.

Do I want this war to happen? No.

Quote: Originally Posted by konai_konai666 I know our Internet bandwidth is much slower than Japan's average high-speed connections of 25Mbps connections mostly because George has himself constantly fooling around with us with same-sex & anti-abortion issues and his unwholesome (as I view it from a historical perspective/ following in the wake and capitalizing on the kind of evil- [yes, my own personal opinion tells me, especially after how that old fart handled Katrina, that this whole family is pretty damn stingy and evil] -his father promoted just so maybe we could have more "oil"? Cars don't die (and can't be fixed) because they ran out of oil.. People die for it and it's not right, whether or not it's been more-or-less heavily veiled behind "The war on terror", I mean, c'mon.. Why couldn't we just walk away with a win/win after the numerous "clean" WMD inspections? I honestly believe we woudl've had much better efficiency in nabbing these terrorists with special forces/ feds rather than bombing them to hell and dropping a few hundred thousand men for the angry civilians to shoot (and maybe, just occasionally, maybe a few terrorists too).. On to the point about the internet though, I'm not here to debate "the war" I've been seeing all along as a huge diminishing return in terms of our national economy, everything.. I'm not tryign to say ("we helped this man trick us so bad into electing him and he's f- us up good now") but a rash string of nationally-foolish political decisions have done such damage to even us, I debate whether or not those "terrorists" could actually ever do the hundreds of billions in damage our heads in office have.. -But really, our broadband connections are still "Clinton speed", -as in our national high-speed bandwidth is largely capped at 3-5Mbps because George bush hasn't even really gotten involved in much local affairs with most of us living here anyway, thus he hasn't signed any major fiber optical plan as Clinton did in 99-2000 with Cable/DSL.. Just making a point on Realisms. No offences intended to anyone (unnecessarily) taking any mention of the truth here personally as "offensive".

KonaiÂ…Â…as I lift my jaw off of the floor, I just want to thank you once again for proving your complete lack of education and total ignorance !

Quote: Originally Posted by konai_konai666 I honestly believe we woudl've had much better efficiency in nabbing these terrorists with special forces/ feds rather than bombing them to hell and dropping a few hundred thousand men for the angry civilians to shoot (and maybe, just occasionally, maybe a few terrorists too)..

Remember Mogadesu, where the Rangers & Delta Force got "spanked" real bad............Just can't do special operations missionlike that as there are way too many unfriendlies over there in Iraq. Although the war is tough, at least I commend Bush for sticking it out until the whole job is finished. Unlike his father.

Quote: Originally Posted by Highperf15 Remember Mogadesu, where the Rangers & Delta Force got "spanked" real bad............Just can't do special operations missionlike that as there are way too many unfriendlies over there in Iraq. Although the war is tough, at least I commend Bush for sticking it out until the whole job is finished. Unlike his father.

I believe arouns 18 Americans died in that incident, but they did take out about 200 of those pigs before they got waxed.

Quote: Originally Posted by EstwingMan KonaiÂ…Â…as I lift my jaw off of the floor, I just want to thank you once again for proving your complete lack of education and total ignorance !

Thanks for the opinion, I commend you for not taking such offence in this (personal opinion of mine endowed through free speech) out on my rep, as this isn't personally directed to anyone here and beliefs are beliefs. I admit all humans are ignorant beings. We should all learn more.
Just to note, were on a pretty level playing ground here, I feel the same way about you/ not YOU, but your comment (slightly unnerved, I guess is the way to put it) having laid it down clearly that this was IMO, but aside from that, I've always had a direct, sometimes shocking way of voicing my opinion, thats just how I am. Lets just leave it there and be bigger than that..

umm before BA comes in and says it, this is a private website so Freedom of Speech is whatever the admin allows . ..


anyways, on China and Taiwan, while China is gearing up for war and plenty of military people I talked to expect the next war to be with China over the Taiwan issue, for some reason, a lot of Chinese people feel that China won't attack Taiwan since there is a lot of trade that goes on between them. Personally, I think that opinion is crap since China would rather control the trade there instead of just being another country to trade with. I agree with Rob that another reason why they want Taiwan back is because it does show that communism isn't needed. It was the same thing with Hong Kong. Hong Kong is probably one of the most wealthy cities around China and they did that under British rule. China used a loophole in the agreement that gave control of Hong Kong to the Brits to get it back for them. At the time the agreement was made, 99 years was understood to be forever in Chinese culture but they used that to get it back recently. While China was able to get Hong Kong back without any blood, it won't be the same case with Taiwan.

oh god no not another thread....must...stay...away!! *Straps in and forces popcorn into mouth*

Quote: Originally Posted by NoSlak I believe arouns 18 Americans died in that incident, but they did take out about 200 of those pigs before they got waxed.

It was just to point out that you just can't send a special ops team in and expect things to be taken care of...........like Iraq................

Quote: Originally Posted by Highperf15 It was just to point out that you just can't send a special ops team in and expect things to be taken care of...........like Iraq................

True dat, true dat.

Not gonna take this opportunity to disrespect Konai for his opinion, someone beat me to it!!

China just has me rattled.. to think that our Naval forces could once again be fighting in the Pacific... G_d, I hope not.

As BA has stated in many previous threads, don't get self-rightous and assume you have freedom of speech on this forum because it is a privately owned site. You will also notice that in those same threads I state that we will allow just about anything legal to be discussed as long as it doesn't turn into a flame war.

I share your concerns, Splitter.

Quote: Originally Posted by BigAkita As BA has stated in many previous threads, don't get self-rightous and assume you have freedom of speech on this forum because it is a privately owned site. You will also notice that in those same threads I state that we will allow just about anything legal to be discussed as long as it doesn't turn into a flame war. I share your concerns, Splitter.

I've said it a lot myself, yet they never seem to get it.

Here's my statement on the subject