[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/150139.shtml

WMD Sales to Iran "Progress"?

Kerry stated on the Senate floor on September 19, 2000 that he would vote for permanent favored (PNTR) trade status with China despite its violations of missile export treaties to Iran.

"We should not scuttle PNTR just to make a point - however valid - about China's continuing export of missile-related technology," stated Kerry.

"Today, our principal concern is Chinese exports in the area of missile-related technology - not complete missile systems - and to two countries: Pakistan and Iran. That, it seems to me, is progress, and progress made during a period of growing engagement between China and the international community," stated Kerry.

Kerry's idea of progress is clearly puzzling. Yet, the Kerry policy of "engagement" is a word that describes an entire class of U.S. politicians who support trade with China over any other concern. The reality of "engagement" is that it is actually a policy of appeasement.The engagement policy advocates, including Kerry, have for over a decade claimed that economic trade with China will pull it into the civilized world, reducing its WMD proliferation and its human rights abuses. Each year we have witnessed China engaged in yet another violation of nuclear or missile technology sales to its proxy states; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and North Korea."

[chalk_outline]

You should mask your links to NewsMax. Most of us refuse to click on them. Or take any article posted by them seriously. Just a heads-ups.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
You should mask your links to NewsMax. Most of us refuse to click on them. Or take any article posted by them seriously. Just a heads-ups.

That's very open-minded and uniting.



Maury

[Mithras]

You would have to include Bush 41, Bush 43, and pretty much the entire leadership in Washington in the group that values trade with China above everything else.

Only a few left-wing Democrats (for human rights) and a few right-wing Republicans (for the sake of Christians in China, or just isolationism) actually want to stick it to China.

I'm one of the former, and apparently NewsMax is one of the latter.

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That's very open-minded and uniting.



Maury

Uniting? We're supposed to take articles posted on a right wing rumor-mill at face value? I wouldn't expect you to do that for a left wing rumor-mill, with good reason.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by itai195:
Uniting? We're supposed to take articles posted on a right wing rumor-mill at face value? I wouldn't expect you to do that for a left wing rumor-mill, with good reason.

I never refuse to click on links, as chalkie apparently does. Opinion makes the world go 'round, ya know.

Maury

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
You should mask your links to NewsMax. Most of us refuse to click on them. Or take any article posted by them seriously. Just a heads-ups.

Thanks for the heads up. WOW. I never knew Newsmax wouldn't be taken seriously by some. I'm not opposed to reading anything to possibly get closer to a/the truth. My right wing friends often question why I read the left wing stuff.

The issue here, however, is did Kerry support measures that allowed the technology to build missiles and WMD's to China, who then provided same to rogue nations?

My next question: Is this policy of engagement still one that he believes has worked and can work to keep America safe?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You would have to include Bush 41, Bush 43, and pretty much the entire leadership in Washington in the group that values trade with China above everything else.

Only a few left-wing Democrats (for human rights) and a few right-wing Republicans (for the sake of Christians in China, or just isolationism) actually want to stick it to China.

I'm one of the former, and apparently NewsMax is one of the latter.

This bears repeating.

By the way, you might want to review just which candidate has been playing best buddies with Pakistan despite the fact they have undermined non-proliferation efforts more than just about anyone in recent years.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
This bears repeating.

By the way, you might want to review just which candidate has been playing best buddies with Pakistan despite the fact they have undermined non-proliferation efforts more than just about anyone in recent years.

Even since the WOT?

Have they even started to come around to seeing the light?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Even since the WOT?

Have they even started to come around to seeing the light?

If by "the light" you mean cold hard US cash and an cozying up to the lone superpower in an effect to one-up your most dangerous regional rival (India), then maybe you have a point.

For all of the Bush and Chenney's rhetoric about our greatest threat being the "nexus" where terrorists were most likely to get WMD, they seem to have completely forgotten Pakistan's role in such matters. Not to mention the former soviet republics of the region.

If Iraq was so close to being such a "nexus" that we had no alternative but to invade and occupy, then our troops should have been marcing into Paksitan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iran LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before they mobilized on Iraq.

I mean, we should have started with the countries that actually had WMD before worrying about the countries that wanted to have them.

[Mithras]

t_f is back in the house! Welcome back man, voices of moderate reason are always in short supply around here.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If by "the light" you mean cold hard US cash and an cozying up to the lone superpower in an effect to one-up your most dangerous regional rival (India), then maybe you have a point.

For all of the Bush and Chenney's rhetoric about our greatest threat being the "nexus" where terrorists were most likely to get WMD, they seem to have completely forgotten Pakistan's role in such matters. Not to mention the former soviet republics of the region.

If Iraq was so close to being such a "nexus" that we had no alternative but to invade and occupy, then our troops should have been marcing into Paksitan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iran LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before they mobilized on Iraq.

I mean, we should have started with the countries that actually had WMD before worrying about the countries that wanted to have them.

I wasn't trying to make a point, I was seriously asking if Pakistan had or hadn't changed it's ways. I don't really know if they are still acting naughty. Just because they are helping us with the WOT doesn't mean they aren't still selling wmd's.

OK, if you criticize the use of violence to achieve the economic /political goals in Iraq, and you criticize the use of foreign aid dollars and the diplomatically implied threat of violence to achieve socio-political change in Pakistan, what else is left to influence change?

Every time I hear someone denounce the US for attacking Iraq instead of Iran or N. Korea or one of the former Soviet satellite countries I wonder if that person understands that to attack a country which already has Nukes is inviting a Nuclear war. No one wants that, yet that's what your argument seems to support.

In the case of the nations you mentioned, diplomacy and $$ will be used as much as possible to chill them out and military intervention REALLY will be the last resort.

Somehow, though, I don't think my last sentence will bring you much comfort. And I can't understand why it wouldn't.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That's very open-minded and uniting.



Maury

I'm a divider and not a uniter. Should I post a picture of a chinchilla taking a dump? Is that open-minded?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was seriously asking if Pakistan had or hadn't changed it's ways. I don't really know if they are still acting naughty. Just because they are helping us with the WOT doesn't mean they aren't still selling wmd's.

OK, if you criticize the use of violence to achieve the economic /political goals in Iraq, and you criticize the use of foreign aid dollars and the diplomatically implied threat of violence to achieve socio-political change in Pakistan, what else is left to influence change?

Every time I hear someone denounce the US for attacking Iraq instead of Iran or N. Korea or one of the former Soviet satellite countries I wonder if that person understands that to attack a country which already has Nukes is inviting a Nuclear war. No one wants that, yet that's what your argument seems to support.

In the case of the nations you mentioned, diplomacy and $$ will be used as much as possible to chill them out and military intervention REALLY will be the last resort.

Somehow, though, I don't think my last sentence will bring you much comfort. And I can't understand why it wouldn't.

You misunderstand me.

I am pointing out the duplicity of the Bush Doctrine which seems to say that any country that doesn't have WMD will get bombed into the stone age, and any country that already has them will get a nice seat at the negotiating table.

The administration spent a year telling us that Iraq was soooooo dangerous that we had no choice but war, but at the same time they insisted that the countries that already have WMD and even stated a willingness to use them pre-emptively against the US population could be handled diplomatically and no one should worry.

Those "mixed messages" are single-handedly responsible for the acceleration of proliferation around the world. The message is clear--get WMD fast or the the only negotiation you'll get from the US is in the form of DU munitions and smart bombs.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You misunderstand me.

I am pointing out the duplicity of the Bush Doctrine which seems to say that any country that doesn't have WMD will get bombed into the stone age, and any country that already has them will get a nice seat at the negotiating table.

The administration spent a year telling us that Iraq was soooooo dangerous that we had no choice but war, but at the same time they insisted that the countries that already have WMD and even stated a willingness to use them pre-emptively against the US population could be handled diplomatically and no one should worry.

Those "mixed messages" are single-handedly responsible for the acceleration of proliferation around the world. The message is clear--get WMD fast or the the only negotiation you'll get from the US is in the form of DU munitions and smart bombs.

If, by 'duplicity' you mean 'doubleness' (1912 Websters dictionary definition, considered archaic now) I guess you are right. GWB is dealing with each threat differently, and appropriately, IMO.

In a hostage situation here at home, the police' first step isn't to go in, guns ablazing, because of the fear of loss of life to the hostage, the hostage taker and the police. Their use of deadly force would escalate the violence. It's usually SOP to use violence as the last resort.

GWB hasn't yet used military force against countries with nukes for the same reason.

The alternative, (If I read you correctly) in the case of Iraq, would have been to negotiate with Saddam. Well, we negotiated a peace treaty at the end of the Gulf War and he violated the terms of the treaty. He violated almost 12 different UN resolutions right up until the war started.

What makes you believe Saddam would suddenly abide by ANY negotiated settlement, when he hadn't done so previously?

I've recently compiled my own list of possible reasons Iraq was #1 to be attacked.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...p;pagenumber=1

1. Oil
2. Shown to be a danger to Israel
3. Had gassed it's own people
4. Was constantly committing human rights violations
5. Was a threat to invade it's arab neighbors
6. Had intentions of developing WMD's
7. Ignored almost a dozen UN resolutions
8. Went under the table to escape the full force of UN sanctions
9. Supported terrorism
10. Tried to assassinate the former President's whole family
11. Would have used the first opportunity to offer real support to terrorists after the start of the WOT and...
12. Did NOT have a nuclear weapon

As long as good faith negotiations are taking place, then the fear of any of those countries using their WMD's is lessened.

But when there is no negotiation, or when negotiations have proven futile, or we have no reason to believe (based on past failures to abide by negotiated settlements) that a country will honor the agreements AND that the nation's leader has intentionally tried to make it appear that he MIGHT have WMD's hidden and ready to unleash against...well, against ANYONE (his own people, on his neighbors, against his enemy or slip some to terrorists who could unleash them on US or our allies) then what would you have done?

I'm seldom one to bring up the Clinton administration's missteps because doing so usually strikes me as partisan politicking. However, in this case, much of the nuclear proliferation that GWB is trying to address through negotiations
could have been prevented or better dealt with before Jan. 2001.

[thunderous_funker]

So when Bush advocates "engagement" (dealing nicely with nasty regimes in the hopes we can influence them positively) its smart policy, but if Kerry advocates "engagement" he is some kind of appeasnik or hypocrite.

Got it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So when Bush advocates "engagement" (dealing nicely with nasty regimes in the hopes we can influence them positively) its smart policy, but if Kerry advocates "engagement" he is some kind of appeasnik or hypocrite.

Got it.

Well, it's not quite as Black & White as you'd make it out to be.

There's an expression in deal making called, "giving away the store."

Negotiation is all well and good in the right circumstances.

However, when you give away the store, you are giving the other party too much in return for what you are getting in return.

Kerry's form of negotiation seems to have favored giving the Chinese the keys to the means by which they could attack us and/or our allies.

And why did he say he did this?

In order to encourage the Chinese to improve their human rights policies.

Four years later they haven't changed.

But the Chinese now have the missiles and are importing them as well as WMD capabilities to rogue nations.

Diplomacy is fine, but you don't want to give away the store.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not saying there is a flaw in your logic. I'm saying you're applying it in a rather arbitrary way.

Why on earth would you single out Kerry to criticize a US/China policy that is almost universally popular in DC and has been for decades?

If Kerry deserves to be criticized for supporting the status quo with China, then so does just about everyone else in Washington including the current residents of the White House.

I can honestly understand criticizing the policy. I'm not a fan of it myself. But why single out Kerry?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You misunderstand me.

I am pointing out the duplicity of the Bush Doctrine which seems to say that any country that doesn't have WMD will get bombed into the stone age, and any country that already has them will get a nice seat at the negotiating table.

The administration spent a year telling us that Iraq was soooooo dangerous that we had no choice but war, but at the same time they insisted that the countries that already have WMD and even stated a willingness to use them pre-emptively against the US population could be handled diplomatically and no one should worry.

Those "mixed messages" are single-handedly responsible for the acceleration of proliferation around the world. The message is clear--get WMD fast or the the only negotiation you'll get from the US is in the form of DU munitions and smart bombs.

Well, irony being what it is Iraq seems to be getting MORE dangerous,

Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not saying there is a flaw in your logic. I'm saying you're applying it in a rather arbitrary way.

Why on earth would you single out Kerry to criticize a US/China policy that is almost universally popular in DC and has been for decades?

If Kerry deserves to be criticized for supporting the status quo with China, then so does just about everyone else in Washington including the current residents of the White House.

I can honestly understand criticizing the policy. I'm not a fan of it myself. But why single out Kerry?

John Kerry Visits China

The Bush administration has resisted the powerful aerospace lobby to restart space exports to China. The main reason is because of the continuing Chinese proliferation of advanced missile and nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.

Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz backs the Kerry campaign. Since 2000, Schwartz has donated over $4 million to Democrats including Kerry.

Kerry also has a secret relationship with Beijing. During the late 1990s, John Kerry traveled to Beijing on behalf of a firm associated with the Chinese military and today he does not want to talk about it.

Yet the Massachusetts-based firm of Boston Capital and Technology openly advertised its connection to Sen. Kerry and also admitted selling advanced U.S. space technology to China. Boston Capital's Web site noted that the firm was "China Advisor to U.S. Senator's commercial agenda for China."

"Advised, assisted, and executed Minister level commercial agenda for U.S. Senator. Advanced Senator in China for all Minister level meetings, coordinated and acted as liaison to:

The U.S. State Department, The U.S. Embassy in Beijing, The Department of Commerce, and all relevant Chinese authorities," states the Web site.

According to the company's Web page, BCT "acted" as a China adviser to "U.S. High Technology's Corporation technology transfer efforts in the People's Republic of China. They were responsible for technology transfer for full-scale manufacturing in China of technologies in telecommunications and satellites."

"Each production package sells for $15-$20 million. The Corporation has successfully transferred these [satellite] technologies to several Chinese manufacturers now in production," states the Boston Capital & Technology Web site.

The Bush administration's position on space technology exports to China is a matter of public record. President Bush has resisted the big money trying so hard to help the Chinese military.

In contrast, Sen. Kerry's position remains secret. Both the senator's campaign and the senator's office refused repeated requests to answer questions. The Kerry policy toward the Chinese military space program is written on large donation checks and remains behind the closed doors of a secret meeting in Beijing.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Well, irony being what it is Iraq seems to be getting MORE dangerous,

Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds

Nicko, what do you see as the solution to this?

[thunderous_funker]

No offense but I take Newsmax with a big grain of salt.

I have found plenty of sources confirming Kerry's involvement with Boston Capital & Technology, but none of those projects would fall under the category of WMD-related technology.

They all appear to be manufacturing projects for circuit boards, cell phone components and one instance of infant toys.

Kerry's relationship to this venture capital group would certainly open him up to criticism on the Outsourcing Jobs front (which is a topic he has been very vocal about), but I don't see much evidence to support the claim that Kerry is pushing to sell dangerous technology to China.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No offense but I take Newsmax with a big grain of salt.

I have found plenty of sources confirming Kerry's involvement with Boston Capital & Technology, but none of those projects would fall under the category of WMD-related technology.

They all appear to be manufacturing projects for circuit boards, cell phone components and one instance of infant toys.

Kerry's relationship to this venture capital group would certainly open him up to criticism on the Outsourcing Jobs front (which is a topic he has been very vocal about), but I don't see much evidence to support the claim that Kerry is pushing to sell dangerous technology to China.

"In contrast, Sen. Kerry's position remains secret. Both the senator's campaign and the senator's office refused repeated requests to answer questions."

Why?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"In contrast, Sen. Kerry's position remains secret. Both the senator's campaign and the senator's office refused repeated requests to answer questions."

Why?

Questions by whom? I wouldn't blame Kerry's or his crew for not answering questions from Newsmax.

Just because he didn't talk to Newsmax doesn't mean there aren't answers to these questions.

I'm not saying Kerry is innocent here. Sounds to me like his relationship to BCT is exactly the kind of cronyism that drives me nuts.

I'm just saying I don't see evidence beyond Newsmax's usual ravings that Kerry is really guilty of what they say he is.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Questions by whom? I wouldn't blame Kerry's or his crew for not answering questions from Newsmax.

Just because he didn't talk to Newsmax doesn't mean there aren't answers to these questions.

I'm not saying Kerry is innocent here. Sounds to me like his relationship to BCT is exactly the kind of cronyism that drives me nuts.

I'm just saying I don't see evidence beyond Newsmax's usual ravings that Kerry is really guilty of what they say he is.

So noted.