Chemtrail Central
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive

Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Do you speak Chinese?

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
Do you speak Chinese? PostWed Jun 22, 2005 11:53 pm  Reply with quote  

It's the much misunderstood and often ignored Chinese doctrine of asymmetrical warfare that has given America much more than just a nose bleed. Will Americans be prepared when they finally decide to move in for the knockout punch against our already crippled and vulnerable nation? And worst of all, we are doing it to ourselves which makes it an act of treason. The "free" traders/traitors of this country have sold our once prosperous souls but not to the devil, to the money hungry dragon of the east. The greed of the wealthy elitists in the states will lead to our own future demise unless we wise up. The problem is, we're not the only greedy ones, and we're now being exploited the same we that we have done to others and still do to this day. China has us right where they want us, in an economic tailspin, knee-deep in foreign policy debacles with our military stretched thin and direct economic dependence upon them due to unbalanced trade.
America Surrendered, Do You Speak Chinese?

I decided to pull this article after really reading through it and realizing that it was just a bunch of rancid right-wing rhetoric. It had some real truths in it though, too bad it was clouded with partisanship.
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"

Last edited by KNOW-THIS on Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostThu Jun 23, 2005 12:00 am  Reply with quote

Outside View: America's China blindness

Hard times are tough, but good times can be even worse. Since the Vietnam defeat in 1975, the United States has not suffered a serious overt blow to its military power, with the result there has been no serious effort at reconfiguring strategies in a context in which India and China displace Europe as the geopolitical pivot of the Eurasian landmass.

Over the coming decade, the "European premium" that has enabled the countries of the West to enjoy a standard of life far in excess of their productive capacities, or future potential, will gradually erode. Only the countries of East Asia and West Asia are victims to this premium now. For the most part, both Arab and Sinic societies are in a time warp. They are unwilling to accept that the center of excellence is shifting from Europe to Asia and North America.

However even they are changing slowly so a secular decline in the standard of living within Europe seems inevitable.

Due of the momentum created by its size, the United States has been able to shrug off the effect of mistakes in policy, creating for itself the illusion it still has time on its side. The fact is 2005 is the equivalent of 1905. The world is about a decade from a possible major international conflagration, one that is likely to be centered in East Asia.

Unless the Chinese Communist Party goes in for economic restructuring, the country will not be able to fend off competition from new players such as Vietnam and India, with the result it will enter into the same process of economic atrophy that has begun in Europe after the expansion of the European Union. The option of reform is almost as painful and will remove from employment tens of millions of those who would have enjoyed more than a decade of prosperity.

It is not the habitual poor who rebel but those who were once well off and are now undergoing hardship. The Chinese Communist Party has overseen a spectacular growth in the real income of its populations. This is the largest known growth in history. Since the Deng Xiaoping reforms that began in 1979, the country has seen substantial growth and prosperity creating in the process a middle class for whom the continuance of good times - not political reforms -- has become the paramount objective.

The Chinese are willing to subordinate themselves to authority were they to regard their welfare as dependent on such acceptance of limitations in freedoms. Should they believe the prosperity that has finally come to them is threatened, they would be as willing to entrust their fates to authorities who they think can reverse economic decline.

Should China enter a period of economic contraction -- something that is now being predicted with increasing frequency -- the population is likely to accept a "hard" regime that promises a "soft" life, rather than go the way of Russians, who rallied behind Boris Yeltsin in an atavistic fit of collective masochism, and subsequently saw their country's economy collapse.

The experience of Russia has served to reduce the hunger for reform within the Chinese population to low levels, despite the verbal encouragement given to such a process by "scholars" from Europe and North America.

And thus Proposition 1: The Chinese population is much more likely to turn toward "authoritarian" than "reformist" solutions at times of internal and external flux. The leadership of the Chinese Communist Party understands this well. It was the recognition of this propensity of the middle classes in China that led the author in November 2002 to suggest a policy of "Constrainment," rather than a duplication of the George Kennan policy of "Containment" that was carried out toward the Soviet Union.

While "containment" would be a broad-spectrum medication, applicable virtually across the board to choke off economic, technological, personal and other contacts, a policy of "constrainment" would have the much narrower focus of degrading China's ability to wage war even while keeping open normal trade and people-to- people channels.

The objective would not be isolation but a steady attrition of the power to sustain a conflict. This could be achieved by a careful monitoring of technology transfers, harsh measures against entities such as North Korea that depend on China, as well as a network of alliances that would automatically get activated in the event of a conflict initiated by China. As a part of such a policy of constrainment, the author suggested the formation of an "Asian NATO" that would guarantee the security of democracies across Asia, even those that were not formal members of the new alliance.

However, the Euro-centric foreign policy and defense establishment in the United States and their Cold War counterparts in India have ensured such a policy remains unimplemented. The United States has still to rid itself of the illusion that Beijing can be part of the solution, when the reality is it is Beijing that has created the problem, most notably in Pakistan and North Korea, the "proxy" nuclear powers created to apply pressure on the flanks of India and Japan respectively.

As for India, while China continues to arm both Pakistan and Bangladesh against New Delhi, those involved in the making of policy continue to hope if they turn their gaze away from the elephant in the room, the animal will disappear.

Chinese leaders, however, have a pachyderm in the room -- Taiwan. While many have written of "One China" or "Two Chinas," the reality is that there are now Two Taiwans. The first (Taiwan One) largely comprises the families of the KMT cadres and elite that occupied the island after their 1949 rout, while the latter (Taiwan Two) comprises most of the rest of the population.

The divide between the two Taiwans has only grown as a consequence of Beijing's policy of dealing exclusively with those who accept the principle of eventual absorption of the island into China. And thus Proposition 2,which is Taiwan Two is likely to increase its influence on policy over Taiwan One, despite the help given to the latter by the United States.

What will become manifest in the years ahead will be a "scissors" effect, caused by: First, increasing ferment within China, leading to the heightening of authoritarian modes of rule and approach;

Second, the widening gap between Taiwan One and Taiwan Two, that creates an impetus within the latter to further stretch the boundaries of Taiwan One's compact with Beijing by increasing the pace of formal separation between China and Taiwan.

Eventually -- at present rates of development, most probably by 2012-15 -- the two blades of the scissors may come together, resulting in a conflagration. After nearly four decades of subjugation to Taiwan One, those who comprise Taiwan Two are unlikely to welcome absorption into China. However, the internal situation within China may by that time make a diversion of public attention through conflict likely.

The PRC economy hinges on two factors, a high degree of access to U.S. markets and public confidence in the longevity and stability of Communist Party rule. Should this appear shaky, there is likely to be a collapse in the financial system, followed by a meltdown in employment and output. This will confront the CCP with a Hobson's Choice: risk ruin through alienating the U.S. market (through conflict with Taiwan) or watch as public anger against CCP rule rises to a degree that makes its stamping down impossible.

Although there seems much distance between Communist Romania and present-day China, the fact remains an oligarchy controls both, one that is dependent on tacit consent of the multitude of those governed. Further while both populations appear docile, they each have an invisible "red line" that -- once crossed -- leads to chaos.

Given its present policy toward the island, Taiwan is a lose-lose situation for China. Should Beijing ignore the inevitable steady progression by Taiwan Two toward the formal attributes of independence, jingoist elements in the military and in the population at large will get alienated.

However, even worse would be the option of war, for this would cut the PRC away from its major market, as well as ensure an evolving policy of Constrainment gets replaced with a policy of severe Containment designed to emasculate the regime by weakening the country, in the manner of Iraq from 1990-2003.

Only a policy of abjuring the use of force against Taiwan so long as there is no formal declaration of independence by the island will steer China away from such treacherous waters. This appears unlikely. The policy of the Chinese Communist Party has historically followed the flowing zigzag direction of quantum mechanics rather than on the linear path of classical mechanics.

Proposition 3 states this fundamental propensity to change direction in CCP policy has not been reversed by the Deng reforms, and the CCP is likely to recoil from the "economistic" policies of this period. The tacit encouragement given to the anti-Japanese riots in April 2005 is an early indicator of such a switch.

In part this is because other powers have not reacted the way China has to "economistic" stimuli. Despite China showering largesse on the European Union in the form of investment and purchases, diplomatic returns have been few, barring atmospherics and verbiage, two fields in which the CCP itself excels, and has used to great effect while dealing with countries less sophisticated, such as India, where the "national security" talent pool comprises mostly of retired bureaucrats and journalists, all of whom source their analysis from the embassies in New Delhi.

The clearer-headed Europeans -- barring France -- have refused the temptation of breaking ranks with the United States in order to support the rival interests of a much weaker power, China, as have most of the South American, African and Central Asian states.

It would be easy to assume the geopolitical successes of the United States are based less on its economic performance than on its military arsenal. Such a conclusion though wrong, would accentuate the increasing trend of defense spending seen within China since the end of the Jiang Zemin period. While media coverage of theatres such as Afghanistan, Serbia and Iraq have judged the U.S. military to have defeated local rivals, the fact is in each case the objective situation for overall U.S. interests is worse after military occupation (as distinct from intervention) than before.

While it is true China has increased its profile and presumed influence within its neighborhood -- most notably with an equally Japan-phobic South Korea -- the fact remains that despite huge increases in economic linkage, support by the "periphery" countries for China core interests ends where U.S. core interests begin.

Both South Korea and Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore (the original booster of China) host U.S. troops and continue to maintain a dense network of military-military cooperation with Washington. On the Taiwan issue, neither has snapped non-commercial links with the island, though Singapore appears to have got a case of the jitters over recent Chinese criticism of high-profile visits by Taiwanese politicians to the city-state.

Whether it is in Central Asia or elsewhere, the much smaller economic footprint of India, for example, has not prevented New Delhi from carrying almost as much diplomatic weight as Beijing.

On balance it appears that an "economist" approach to foreign policy is not sufficient to ensure support for Chinese interests. Hence the increasing inner-party consensus that the "rising superpower" needs an armed forces that reflects its economic muscle. The attention being paid to the creation of a blue water navy and long-range underwater and airborne strike capability indicates a policy decision to have the capacity to intervene militarily in China's "Near Abroad" -- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the China Seas and -- a recent addition -- the Indian Ocean.

These accretions are much higher in scope and volume than are needed for a purely "Taiwan-centric" posture. The evolving parameters suggest a determination by Beijing to gradually displace the U.S.-Japan combination as the principal military power in Asia.

Proposition 4 states China is seeking to create an archipelago of bases and "friendly" locations that could be used to moor its forces so it can be in position to repel or initiate an attack. Particular attention will be paid to the Pacific Ocean mini-states and to Pakistan. Gwadar is only the most visible symbol of this developing trend.

While those involved in the making of U.S. foreign policy are usually also the ones judging its relevance and success, the reality is that Washington's external affairs elite appears to have developed the characteristics of a sadomasochistic worldview. The harshest measures are carried out against those regarded as incapable of significant retaliation, while toward the rest, there is a cringing -- in practice -- accompanied by growls that hopefully camouflage the kowtow. Toward China, the growling -- mainly on monetary issues -- has been unable to mask the acceptance of Beijing's bona fides on most critical issues.

A parallel can be drawn between the United States of today and Britain of the 1920s and the 1930s. At that time, London refused to acknowledge the significance of the rise of the National Socialist Deutsch Arbeiter Partei under Adolf Hitler, seeing in him either a crank or as an individual with whom business could get transacted. Similarly, Britain failed to recognize that the most effective ally against Hitlerite Germany would not be an enervated and panic-stricken France but the Soviet Union. It was because both London and Paris left Moscow no other option that the Hitler-Stalin pact took place, emboldening Berlin to risk a world war. Replace London with Washington, Berlin with Beijing and Moscow with New Delhi, shift back "2005" to "1929" and you have the present.

(M.D. Nalapat is professor of geopolitics at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India. This article was originally published in Security Research Review, New Delhi, Vol. 1 (3), April 2005.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
All rights reserved. Copyright 2005 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International.

"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostThu Jun 23, 2005 6:58 pm  Reply with quote
Chinese Oil Company Offers $18.5 Billion for Unocal

SHANGHAI, Thursday, June 23 - A Chinese state-controlled oil company made a $18.5 billion unsolicited bid for Unocal today, igniting the first-ever takeover battle between corporations in China and the United States.

The bold bid by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, may be a watershed in Chinese corporate behavior and demonstrates the increasing influence of Wall Street's bare-knuckled tactics in Asia. The offer also illustrates how crucial oil and gas resources are to China given its huge growth.

CNOOC's bid, which comes two months after Unocal agreed to be sold to the American energy giant Chevron for $16.8 billion, is expected to provoke a fierce debate in Washington about the nation's trade policies with China and the role of the two governments in the growing trend of deal making between companies in both countries.

Earlier this week, a consortium of investors led by the Haier Group, one of China's biggest companies, made a bid to acquire the Maytag Corporation, the American appliance icon, for about $1.3 billion, surpassing an earlier bid made by a group of American investors. Last month, Lenovo, China's largest computer maker competed its $1.75 billion to acquire I.B.M.'s legendary personal computer business, creating the world's third-largest computer maker after Dell Computer and Hewlett-Packard.

Analysts suggest these deals are the latest symbols of China's growing economic clout, and the soaring ambitions of a new breed of corporate giants in this country. China wants to be a player on the world stage, and it is eager to have it own energy resources, its own multinational corporations and its own dazzling corporate icons.

After years of attracting billions of dollars in foreign investment, and turning itself into the world's largest factory floor, China appears to be nurturing the growth of its own corporate giants, trying to create its own beacons of capitalism. And some of China's biggest companies are now on the acquisition hunt, trying to snap up global treasures.

"If there's an asset up for sale anywhere in the world, people are looking to China, particularly if there's a manufacturing element involved," said Colin Banfield, who runs the mergers and acquisitions practice at Credit Suisse First Boston in Asia. "And if these two deals go through this year, no one is going to doubt the credibility of the Chinese corporates when it comes to M.&A."

The deal making and bidding wars are all the more remarkable because they involve Chinese companies taking on American multinationals in a series of deals that are certain to be a boon for western lawyers and investment bankers, many of whom have in recent years been betting hundreds of millions of dollars on China's rise. Indeed, CNOOC is being advised on its bid by an army of bankers from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase and N M Rothschild & Sons of Britain.

CNOOC is interested in Unocal, once known for its 76 brand, less for its exploration and production in North America than its huge reserves in Asia. Twenty-seven percent of Unocal's proved oil reserves and 73 percent of its proved natural gas reserves are located in Asia, according to Merrill Lynch.

CNOOC may face an uphill battle: CNOOC will have to persuade Unocal's shareholders to vote against its deal with Chevron before the company would be allowed accept a deal with CNOOC, which would then have to be put to another shareholder vote.

CNOOC is making an all-cash bid of $67 a share for Unocal, exceeding Chevron's cash and stock bid valued at $62 a share.

Wall Street had been anticipating for several days that CNOOC would make a higher bid. On Wednesday, Unocal's shares closed at $64.86.

Even though CNOOC's offer is worth $1.5 billion more than Chevron's, some shareholders could still decide that the regulatory review process and time required to complete a deal with CNOOC pose too great a risk.

Chevron, which could also raise its bid to head-off CNOOC, is racing to complete its deal with Unocal and put it to a shareholder vote as early as August.

In CNOOC's letter to Unocal outlining its bid, it went to great lengths to say that its bid is friendly, despite it being unsolicited. "This friendly, all-cash proposal is a superior offer for Unocal shareholders," wrote CNOOC's chairman and chief executive, Mr. Fu Chengyu.

Unocal said in a statement that it would evaluate CNOOC's offer, but that its board continued to support its deal with Chevron.

Chevron said in a statement that it stood behind its merger agreement with Unocal, which was approved by the boards of both companies. "The Chevron/Unocal agreement combines compelling value, regulatory certainty and accelerated timing, providing a superior transaction for Unocal stockholders," the company said.

It added, "A transaction with Chevron is highly likely to close, while the CNOOC proposal must undergo an extensive regulatory process in the United States and elsewhere."

CNOCC also tried to assuage concerns of some lawmakers in Washington and pledged to continue Unocal's practice of selling all of the oil and gas produced in the United Sattes back to customers in the United States. And the company said it would retain substantially all of Unocal's employees in the United States.

Already, lawmakers in Washington are questioning whether the Bush administration should intervene to block CNOOC 's bid for Unocal, which was founded in 1890 as the Union Oil Company of California.

Two Republican congressmen from California, Richard Pombo and Duncan Hunter, wrote a letter last week to President Bush urging the transaction be scrutinized because of concerns of national security. Unocal is based in El Segundo, Calif.

In their letter, they wrote: "As the world energy landscape shifts, we believe that it is critical to understand the implications for American interests and most especially, the threat posed by China's governmental pursuit of world energy resources. The United States increasingly need to view meeting its energy requirements within the context of our foreign policy, national security and economic security agenda."

Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said at meeting of the National Petroleum Council on Wednesday that the government's review of the deal would be "truly a complex matter," according to Reuters.

In Beijing, Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, told reporters on Tuesday that "this is a corporate issue," according to Bloomberg News. "I can't comment on this individual case, but I can say we encourage the U.S. to allow normal trade relations to take place without political interference."

David Barboza reported from Shanghai for this article, and Andrew Ross Sorkin from New York.

"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"

Last edited by KNOW-THIS on Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostFri Jun 24, 2005 3:44 am  Reply with quote  

Poll: In wake of Iraq war, allies prefer China to U.S.

America's rating was lowest in Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan

Thursday, June 23, 2005 Posted: 2146 GMT (0546 HKT)

The Iraq war and wariness about U.S. foreign policy caused a slip in world opinion, an international poll says.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably -- and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.

"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.

In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.

In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.

The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies -- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan -- where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light.

Only India and Poland were more upbeat about the United States, while Canadians were just as likely to see China favorably as they were the U.S.

The poll found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.

"The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.

However the U.S. image has bounced back in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country which benefited from U.S. aid to tsunami victims, as well as in India and Russia.

Support for the U.S.-led war on terror has dipped in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Spain, while it remains low in the Muslim countries surveyed like Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan.

"The position of the United States as the one surviving superpower is to be assertive in responding in a world of terrorism. But in the rest of the world, there is a great wariness about that," said John Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri who also was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a St. Louis attorney.

The poll found a positive reaction in European countries to President George W. Bush's campaign for more democracy in countries around the world. People in Muslim countries were wary of the U.S. campaign, but supportive of the idea of democracy in their own countries.

Danforth said the attitudes in the Mideast about democracy were a bright spot.

"We should keep plugging away on democracy," Danforth said. "But we need to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do."

The survey found that a majority of people in most countries say the United States does not take the interests of other countries into account when making international policy decisions.

It also found most would like to see another country get as much military power as the United States, though few want China to play that role.

People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.

The polls were taken in various countries from late April to the end of May with samples of about 1,000 in most countries, with more interviewees in India and China and slightly less than 1,000 in the European countries. The margin of sampling error ranged from 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points, depending on the sample size.
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostFri Jun 24, 2005 7:19 pm  Reply with quote  

Good one! Had not seen that poll yet. We really have alienated ourselves from the world.

China continues to make its moves though:

Haier Group bids US$1.3bn for Maytag


Haier Group bids US$1.3bn for Maytag

BEIJING - China's leading home appliance maker Haier Group has made a bid to buy Maytag, the third-largest appliance maker in the United States, for US$1.28 billion. Maytag has received preliminary non-binding proposals from Haier America Trading LLC, private equity companies Bain Capital Partners LLC and Blackstone Capital Partners IV LP, the US company announced Tuesday on its website. But Haier Group did not give any response.

The great American buyout has begun!
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 329
Location: Conroe, Texas, USA
Wells Fargo Bank already prepared for the chinese invasion PostFri Jun 24, 2005 10:58 pm  Reply with quote  

Go to and do a search for bank/ATM locations. Then select an ATM location from the list to get more details about it... every Wells Fargo ATM in the United States is already programmed in 3 languages, English, Spanish, and Chinese. I can understand Spanish, now that latinos are the dominant minority in the U.S. but how many people living in the U.S. do you suppose speak fluent Chinese? Wouldn't it make more sense for the ATMs in northern cities near French speaking portions of Canada to be programmed in English, Spanish and French, not Chinese?
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostSat Jun 25, 2005 3:31 am  Reply with quote  

Good question Zoobie, your guess is as good as mine. You've got me scratching my head on that one. Unless they just know something that we don't? It seems like instructions for many products were being written in Spanish as well as English way before the illegal immigration problem reached the levels that they're at now. It's as if they were forewarned of this invasion?
I hope that the Chinese stuff isn't a sign of things to come!
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 329
Location: Conroe, Texas, USA
PostSat Jun 25, 2005 12:47 pm  Reply with quote  

In Houston they have tellers that speak Vietnamese at some of the Wells Fargo branches, which makes sense because of the somewhat large Vietnamese population in certain parts of Houston. You'd think that the ATMs at those same locations would be programmed in Vietnamese as well, but no, only English, Spanish & Chinese. Many of them are "talking" ATMs as well, also programmed in the same three languages.
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostSat Jun 25, 2005 8:50 pm  Reply with quote  

I guess our equal opportunity government feels that even Chinese spies need quick and easy access to cash? I mean, why else would they being doing this?

The defectors have talked about a network of thousands of Chinese spies across Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand that has infiltrated overseas groups of Falun Gong practitioners, Christians, and advocates seeking democracy in China

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that currently rules China and does business with the world, is “more evil” than the Nazi Party, said Mr. Xu Shuiliang of the Chinese Web site,

"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostSat Jun 25, 2005 8:53 pm  Reply with quote  

I wouldn't be surprised if the damn ATM machines were made in China to begin with, like everything else in this country.
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostMon Jun 27, 2005 5:35 pm  Reply with quote  

Don't disturb the beast........

This should scare the hell out of you. If it doesn't I don't know what else to tell you?

June 26, 2005
By Bill Gertz

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

"There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning," said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. "And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems."

China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.

"We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.

The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.

Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said.

The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say, would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation that a military attack on Taiwan would cause.


In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a "million-man swim" across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships.

"We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."

Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: "In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there."

Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing's "veil" of secrecy over it.

While military modernization itself is not a major worry, "what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and the size of the modernization," he said during a recent breakfast meeting with reporters.

China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester said.

It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.

Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, "which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea," Gen. Hester said.

Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.

The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the J-10.

Gen. Hester compared Chinese warplanes with those of the former Soviet Union, which were less capable than their U.S. counterparts, but still very deadly.

"They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and what we know about them gives us pause for concern against ours," he said.

Missiles also are a worry.

"It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have," Gen. Hester said.

The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States -- Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said.

To better deal with possible future conflicts in Asia, the Pentagon is modernizing U.S. military facilities on the Western Pacific island of Guam and planning to move more forces there.

The Air Force will regularly rotate Air Expeditionary Force units to Guam and also will station the new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle known as Global Hawk on the island, he said.

It also has stationed B-2 stealth bombers on Guam temporarily and is expected to deploy B-1 bombers there, in addition to the B-52s now deployed there, Gen. Hester said.


China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of extending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia.

"Clearly, they are still influenced by this first and second island chain," the intelligence official said.

The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.

The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.

"If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.

"So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."

The dispatch of a Han-class submarine late last year to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan was an indication of the Chinese military's drive to expand its oceangoing capabilities, the officials said. The submarine surfaced in Japanese waters, triggering an emergency deployment of Japan's naval forces.

Beijing later issued an apology for the incursion, but the political damage was done. Within months, Japan began adopting a tougher political posture toward China in its defense policies and public statements. A recent Japanese government defense report called China a strategic national security concern. It was the first time China was named specifically in a Japanese defense report.


For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.

The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power.

China "is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes [from the Middle East], but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.

The report said China believes the United States already controls the sea routes from the oil-rich Persian Gulf through the Malacca Strait. Chinese President Hu Jintao has called this strategic vulnerability to disrupted energy supplies Beijing's "Malacca Dilemma."

To prevent any disruption, China has adopted a "string of pearls" strategy that calls for both offensive and defensive measures stretching along the oil-shipment sea lanes from China's coast to the Middle East.

The "pearls" include the Chinese-financed seaport being built at Gwadar, on the coast of western Pakistan, and commercial and military efforts to establish bases or diplomatic ties in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand and disputed islands in the South China Sea.

The report stated that China's ability to use these pearls for a "credible" military action is not certain.

Pentagon intelligence officials, however, say the rapid Chinese naval buildup includes the capability to project power to these sea lanes in the future.

"They are not doing a lot of surface patrols or any other kind of security evolutions that far afield," the intelligence official said. "There's no evidence of [Chinese military basing there] yet, but we do need to keep an eye toward that expansion."

The report also highlighted the vulnerability of China's oil and gas infrastructure to a crippling U.S. attack.

"The U.S. military could severely cripple Chinese resistance [during a conflict over Taiwan] by blocking its energy supply, whereas the [People's Liberation Army navy] poses little threat to United States' energy security," it said.

China views the United States as "a potential threat because of its military superiority, its willingness to disrupt China's energy imports, its perceived encirclement of China and its disposition toward manipulating international politics," the report said.


The report stated that China will resort "to extreme, offensive and mercantilist measures when other strategies fail, to mitigate its vulnerabilities, such as seizing control of energy resources in neighboring states."

U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources.

Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China's military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup "has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do"

"Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts," Mr. Pillsbury said. "The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it."

Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.

"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."

"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostMon Jun 27, 2005 5:39 pm  Reply with quote  

Alarming as all hell!!!....

Thefts of U.S. Technology Boost China's Weaponry

une 27, 2005
by Bill Gertz
Washington Times

China is stepping up its overt and covert efforts to gather intelligence and technology in the United States, and the activities have boosted Beijing's plans to rapidly produce advanced-weapons systems.

"I think you see it where something that would normally take 10 years to develop takes them two or three," said David Szady, chief of FBI counterintelligence operations.

He said the Chinese are prolific collectors of secrets and military-related information.

"What we're finding is that [the spying is] much more focused in certain areas than we ever thought, such as command and control and things of that sort," Mr. Szady said.

"In the military area, the rapid development of their 'blue-water' navy -- like the Aegis weapons systems -- in no small part is probably due to some of the research and development they were able to get from the United States," he said.

The danger of Chinese technology acquisition is that if the United States were called on to fight a war with China over the Republic of China (Taiwan), U.S. forces could find themselves battling a U.S.-equipped enemy.

"I would hate for my grandson to be killed with U.S. technology" in a war over Taiwan, senior FBI counterintelligence official Tim Bereznay told a conference earlier this year.

The Chinese intelligence services use a variety of methods to spy, including traditional intelligence operations targeting U.S. government agencies and defense contractors.

Additionally, the Chinese use hundreds of thousands of Chinese visitors, students and other nonprofessional spies to gather valuable data, most of it considered "open source," or unclassified information.

"What keeps us up late at night is the asymmetrical, unofficial presence," Mr. Szady said. "The official presence, too. I don't want to minimize that at all in what they are doing."

China's spies use as many as 3,200 front companies -- many run by groups linked to the Chinese military -- that are set up to covertly obtain information, equipment and technology, U.S. officials say.

Recent examples include front businesses in Milwaukee; Trenton, N.J.; and Palo Alto, Calif., Mr. Szady said.

In other cases, China has dispatched students, short-term visitors, businesspeople and scientific delegations with the objective of stealing technology and other secrets.

The Chinese "are very good at being where the information is," Mr. Szady said.

"If you build a submarine, no one is going to steal a submarine. But what they are looking for are the systems or materials or the designs or the batteries or the air conditioning or the things that make that thing tick," he said. "That's what they are very good at collecting, going after both the private sector, the industrial complexes, as well as the colleges and universities in collecting scientific developments that they need."

One recent case involved two Chinese students at the University of Pennsylvania who were found to be gathering nuclear submarine secrets and passing them to their father in China, a senior military officer involved in that country's submarine program.


To counter such incidents, the FBI has been beefing up its counterintelligence operations in the past three years and has special sections in all 56 field offices across the country for counterspying.

But the problem of Chinese spying is daunting.

"It's pervasive," Mr. Szady said. "It's a massive presence, 150,000 students, 300,000 delegations in the New York area. That's not counting the rest of the United States, probably 700,000 visitors a year. They're very good at exchanges and business deals, and they're persistent."

Chinese intelligence and business spies will go after a certain technology, and they eventually get what they want, even after being thwarted, he said.

Paul D. Moore, a former FBI intelligence specialist on China, said the Chinese use a variety of methods to get small pieces of information through numerous collectors, mostly from open, public sources.

The three main Chinese government units that run intelligence operations are the Ministry of State Security, the military intelligence department of the People's Liberation Army and a small group known as the Liaison Office of the General Political Department of the Chinese army, said Mr. Moore, now with the private Centre for Counterintelligence Studies.

China gleans most of its important information not from spies but from unwitting American visitors to China -- from both the U.S. government and the private sector -- who are "serially indiscreet" in disclosing information sought by Beijing, Mr. Moore said in a recent speech.

In the past several years, U.S. nuclear laboratory scientists were fooled into providing Chinese scientists with important weapons information during discussions in China through a process of information elicitation -- asking questions and seeking help with physics "problems" that the Chinese are trying to solve, he said.

"The model that China has for its intelligence, in general, is to collect a small amount of information from a large amount of people," Mr. Moore said during a conference of security specialists held by the National Security Institute, a Massachusetts-based consulting firm.


Mr. Szady acknowledges that the FBI is still "figuring out" the methods used by the Chinese to acquire intelligence and technology from the United States.

Since 1985, there have been only six major intelligence defectors from China's spy services, and information about Chinese activities and methods is limited, U.S. officials said.

Recent Chinese spy cases were mired in controversy.

The case against Katrina Leung, a Los Angeles-based FBI informant who the FBI thinks was a spy for Beijing, ended in the dismissal of charges of taking classified documents from her FBI handler. The Justice Department is appealing the case.

The case against Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was suspected of supplying classified nuclear-weapons data to China, ended with Mr. Lee pleading guilty to only one count among the 59 filed.

The FBI has been unable to find out who in the U.S. government supplied China with secrets on every deployed nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, including the W-88, the small warhead used on U.S. submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

"I think the problem is huge, and it's something that I think we're just getting our arms around," Mr. Szady said of Chinese spying. "It's been there, and what we're doing is more or less discovering it or figuring it out at this point."

Mr. Bereznay said recently that Chinese intelligence activities are a major worry. FBI counterintelligence against the Chinese "is our main priority," he said.

In some cases, so-called political correctness can interfere with FBI counterspying. For example, Chinese-American scientists at U.S. weapons laboratories have accused the FBI of racial profiling.

But Mr. Szady said that is not the case.

China uses ethnic Chinese-Americans as a base from which to recruit agents, he said.

"They don't consider anyone to be American-Chinese," Mr. Szady said. "They're all considered overseas Chinese."

So the answer he gives to those who accuse the FBI of racial profiling is: "We're not profiling you. The Chinese are, and they're very good at doing that."


China's government also uses influence operations designed to advance pro-Chinese policies in the United States and to prevent the U.S. government from taking tough action or adopting policies against Beijing's interests, FBI officials said.

Rudy Guerin, a senior FBI counterintelligence official in charge of China affairs, said the Chinese aggressively exploit their connections to U.S. corporations doing business in China.

"They go straight to the companies themselves," he said.

Many U.S. firms doing business in China, including such giants as Coca-Cola, Boeing and General Motors, use their lobbyists on behalf of Beijing.

"We see the Chinese going to these companies to ask them to lobby on their behalf on certain issues," Mr. Guerin said, "whether it's most-favored-nation trade status, [World Health Organization], Falun Gong or other matters."

The Chinese government also appeals directly to members of Congress and congressional staff.

U.S. officials revealed that China's embassy in Washington has expanded a special section in charge of running influence operations, primarily targeting Congress.

The operation, which includes 26 political officers, is led by Su Ge, a Chinese government official.

The office frequently sends out e-mail to selected members or staff on Capitol Hill, agitating for or against several issues, often related to Taiwan affairs.

Nu Qingbao, one of Mr. Su's deputies, has sent several e-mails to select members and staff warning Congress not to support Taiwan.

The e-mails have angered Republicans who view the influence operations as communist meddling.

"The Chinese, like every other intelligence agency or any other government, are very much engaged in trying to influence, both covertly and overtly," Mr. Szady said.


The real danger to the United States is the loss of the high-technology edge, which can impair U.S. competitiveness but more importantly can boost China's military.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the Department of Homeland Security, is concerned because the number of high-profile cases of illegal Chinese technology acquisition is growing.

"We see a lot of activity involving China, and I think it would be fair to say the trend is toward an increase," said Robert A. Schoch, deputy assistant director in ICE's national security investigations division.

Mr. Schoch said that one recent case of a South Korean businessman who sought to sell advanced night-vision equipment to China highlights the problem.

"We have an awesome responsibility to protect this sensitive technology," he said. "That gives the military such an advantage."

ICE agents are trying hard to stop illegal exports to China and several other states, including Iran and Syria, not just by halting individual exports but by shutting down networks of illegal exporters, Mr. Schoch said.

Another concern is that China is a known arms proliferator, so weapons and related technology that are smuggled there can be sent to other states of concern.

"Yes, some of this stuff may go to China, but then it could be diverted to other countries," Mr. Schoch said. "And that is the secondary proliferation. Who knows where it may end up."

As with China's military buildup, China's drive for advanced technology with military applications has been underestimated by the U.S. intelligence community.

A report prepared for the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission found predictions that China was unable to advance technologically were false.

In fact, the report by former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury highlights 16 key advances in Chinese technology -- all with military implications -- in the past six months alone.

The failure to gauge China's development is part of the bias within the U.S. government that calls for playing down the threat from the growing power of China, both militarily and technologically, Mr. Pillsbury stated.

"Predictions a decade ago of slow Chinese [science and technology] progress have now proved to be false," the report stated.

Unlike the United States, China does not distinguish between civilian and military development. The same factories in China that make refrigerators also are used to make long-range ballistic missiles.

At a time when U.S. counterintelligence agencies are facing an array of foreign spies, the Chinese are considered the most effective at stealing secrets and know-how.

"I think the Chinese have figured it out, as far as being able to collect and advance their political, economic and military interests by theft or whatever you want to call it," Mr. Szady said. "They are way ahead of what the Russians have ever done."

"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jun 27, 2005 5:58 pm  Reply with quote  

Guess it's time for Sting to make an update to his M.A.D. track..

"I hope the Chinese love their children too"
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Voter Fraud Central
PostMon Jun 27, 2005 8:52 pm  Reply with quote  

What is really a kicker too. Our good friend Isreal sold china a bunch of our Tech info on military weapons and intel capablities.
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostMon Jun 27, 2005 9:12 pm  Reply with quote  

Yes, we have a habit of being friends with the wrong crowd.
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page
1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:57 am

  Display posts from previous:      

© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base