Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Think People!

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    chris, i do not have the sources right now for the claim, but i roughly remember there was a information (top secret category) leak that indeed there are
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      chris,

      i do not have the sources right now for the claim, but i roughly remember
      there was a information (top secret category) leak that indeed there are
      nuclear warheads aimed at china, all ready. china is a country unlike iraq,
      which bush thought can be subdued with non-nuclear military traditional
      means. taiwan is but a province of china, a renegade one to be exact. but
      the tiff between mainland china and taiwan is a internal affair, and i dont
      see why america should get involved. it is a different case when there is a
      invasion on singapore, a sovereign country, and the friendly treaty between
      one sovereign to another, it is called allies. taiwan and china is 'family
      problems'. ur scenarios of a chinese invasion of singapore will never
      happen, it is clear that singapore is not part of china that she wants it
      back. i do think it is good that america acts as a kind of international
      police, but while i can understand the moral of destroying the taliban (a
      govt that harbours and train terrorists, a permanent threat to international
      security), or attacks on saddam when he invaded kuwait (a sovereign), i will
      not understand america's action against china over taiwan, should there be
      one. taiwan belongs to one china, and that is it. if bush thinks that china
      can be bullied, then he is clearly mistaken. china has the determination and
      capability to take on america should bush tries to flex his superpower
      muscles. the quality of america's nuclear weapons may be better than those
      of china's, but still what china already have in nuclear weapons is
      sufficient to destroy not just america, but the world over. it is a case of
      mutually assured destruction, and it doesnt matter if one side has a
      somewhat superior weapons (i guess this is the main motivation of bush
      wanting a star war kind of defense system). bush could easily tackle the
      taliban, saddam, n. korea, but he will be sorely sorry if he tries to have a
      headfight with china, the price he has to pay is not going to be light. i
      think bush's nosy meddling in china's internal affairs unreasonable, and as
      yet, have no idea the extent and length he wishes to meddle. china will
      defend her sovereignity to the last, and worst comes to worst, we will
      indeed be back to the stone age, if at all. there is no turning back if the
      button for the nuclear weapons is indeed pressed on either side (most
      probably both sides), and the world will be in for it (when the elephants
      fight, the grass got trampled; when the water in the river is used to save
      the fire, the fish suffer as well). was disappointed when bush won the
      office; preferred al gore.

      james.


      From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
      Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [Sartre] artre] Think People!
      Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:10:02 -0800

      James:

      Although this doesn't really have anything to do with Sartre, I don't think
      that Bush's new policy announcements said that any missles were actually
      targeted at China. What it said was that China was a potential threat that
      should be assessed with respect to the U.S. nuclear weapons policy. I think
      these presents comments are just rhetoric and verbal support of Taiwan.
      After all, words don't cost anything and mere posturing is free.

      Still, in light of other events, this comment concerning U.S. nuclear power
      is significant in light of Bush's campaign statements to the effect that he
      would favor U.S. military intervention should the mainland seek to invade
      Taiwan. (These comments were one principal motivations that I had for
      voting for his opponent). The idea of the U.S. going to war to protect
      Taiwan must really remain unthinkable. It makes no sense whatsoever.

      Recent news accounts in the Wall Street Journal suggest that Communist China
      is on the world market buying up weapons and weapons systems, including
      naval vessels. The speculation is that they are preparing for the invasion
      of Taiwan. Apparently some Chinese efforts to purchase weapons have been
      blocked by the Bush Administration.

      But now imagine that instead of posturing to protect Taiwan from Chinese
      invasion the U.S. was posturing to protect Singapore from Chinese invasion.
      Would you see the wisdom in Bush making such statements then?

      Chris
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: james tan
      Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:45 AM
      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Sartre] artre] Think People!


      talking about beating ourselves back to stone age...i think only nuclear
      weapons could do that. and it does not seem to help that bush has 'proudly'
      declared he has nukes pointing at china. what he seem to overlook is that,
      china too has more than enough nuclear capability to destroy america. i am
      not suggesting they are about to do so, or they should do so, but i really
      don't see the wisdom of bush in making such statement revealing his agenda
      and intention. his intention does not seem all that friendly. not sure what
      is up in his sleeves.

      james.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









      _________________________________________________________________
      Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
      http://www.hotmail.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.