=== Whether John McCain or Barack Obama, remember to register to vote! ===

CHINA ARMING INSURGENTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

user ballots

CHINA ARMING INSURGENTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN


[+] serious ballot by Kev24
created Fri Jun 15, 07

from the washington post --


China arming terrorists

New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.

U.S. government appeals to China to check some of the arms shipments in advance were met with stonewalling by Beijing, which insisted it knew nothing about the shipments and asked for additional intelligence on the transfers. The ploy has been used in the past by China to hide its arms-proliferation activities from the United States, according to U.S. officials with access to the intelligence reports.

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

The weapons were described as "late-model" arms that have not been seen in the field before and were not left over from Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.

U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the flow of Iranian arms to Afghanistan is "fairly substantial" and that it is likely taking place with the help of the Iranian government.

Defense officials are upset that Chinese weapons are being used to kill Americans. "Americans are being killed by Chinese-supplied weapons, with the full knowledge and understanding of Beijing where these weapons are going," one official said.

The arms shipments show that the idea that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism is "utter nonsense," the official said.

John Tkacik, a former State Department official now with the Heritage Foundation, said the Chinese arms influx "continues 10 years of willful blindness in both Republican and Democrat administrations to China's contribution to severe instability in the Middle East and South Asia."

Mr. Tkacik said the administration should be candid with the American people about China's arms shipments, including Beijing's provision of man-portable air-defense missiles through Iran and Syria to warring factions in Lebanon and Gaza.

Apologists for China within the government said the intelligence reports were not concrete proof of Chinese and Iranian government complicity.

Pentagon spokesmen declined to comment. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy did not return telephone calls seeking comment.


^ more proof that we can't trust china?

stay on topic here kids and focus on the issue at hand -- china supplying arms to these groups.

proof that we can't trust china
china is pure like angels and
gee, i hope walmart knows about this
Comment


Ballot #115638 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
111829. US warns Iran on Iraq insurgents
96374. Would the U.S. government pull its troops out of Iraq if the insurgents stopped
104828. What wil the world look like once both Afghanistan and Iraq collapse
92991. How much are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now costing the U.S. per month?
111089. Why does GWBush plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan to put them in Iraq?
82298. President Bush says God told him to fight terrorist in Afghanistan and end tyranny in Iraq....
89281. Bush is visiting Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan. Shouldn't he visit Iraq while he's in the neighborhood?
81962. How can we expect Iraq and Afghanistan to turn into 'thriving secular democracies' if 5% of the planet controls 95% of the resources?
122786. If China (instead of the U.S) said they need to invade Iraq
112259. U.S. general: No evidence Iran is arming Iraqis


COMMENTS:
I'm not surprised, If China was smart, and wanted people to look the other way on what might be doing, they would ask Walmart to build stores in those two countries, and sell directly

by larrynelmira on Fri Jun 15, 07 7:40am [+]

^On what they might be doing
by larrynelmira on Fri Jun 15, 07 7:41am [+]

Voted : proof that we can't trust china
China also funds agitators in this country as well.

by _Beelzebubba on Fri Jun 15, 07 8:57am [+]

Voted : gee, i hope walmart knows about this
Maybe they buy them from a Wal-Mart in Baghdad.
by skylab on Fri Jun 15, 07 10:01am [+]

figures, they do anything to make a profit
by aya on Fri Jun 15, 07 10:30am [+]

Voted : proof that we can't trust china
Sooner or later there will be a confrontation and let's hope our leaders aren't underestimating China's emergence on the international scene for the sole sake of making money....
by thesoothsayer on Fri Jun 15, 07 12:23pm [+]

^ They are doing for money thesoothsayer IMO, and for our consumers to happily look the other way while they save a few dollars on a cd player. IMO for what it's worth.
by larrynelmira on Fri Jun 15, 07 1:32pm [+]

"Save the world as long as it doesnt affect the bottom line"

That should be America's new
motto.
by larrynelmira on Fri Jun 15, 07 1:41pm [+]

Voted : Comment
No country in the world has provided a larger source of funds, training, and weapons to "insurgents" (such fine lines between insurgent and ally) than the United States. Probably the best, most significant example of this can be found in the proxy war with Afghanistan, when we employed the Afghan jihadi movement known as the Mujahideen against the Soviets. The Taliban, al Qaeda, Hamas, and the founders of virtually every single organization which came to be identified as "terrorist" during the 1990s and 2000s came from the Mujahideen. This was the largest covert proxy war in modern history.
In 1986, the CIA (collaborating with the Pakistani equivalent-the ISI-and any number of third and fourth parties) employed Osama Bin Laden as a major contractor on a large mountain tunnel complex in Khost, Afghanistan. This was to be an arms depot, training facility, and medical center for the Mujahideen - which splintered apart after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Turns out, they were not fighting Communism so much as they were fighting foreign occupation - surprise! During the following decade, the complex, (like almost all of Afghanistan,) fell under the domination of the Taliban who continued to protect and support Bin Laden and al Qaeda even after Clinton launched a bunch of missiles at it in 1998. The CIA denies this, so you know, they're probably telling the truth... like when they denied that we were funneling profits from illegal weapons sales to Iran to "support" the Nicaraguan Contras.
We continue to support proxy wars by providing assets to foreign "resistance movements" such as Jundullah or the MEK(Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) whenever it suits us. No fuss, no muss; no accountability, no restrictions or rules of war. So unless there is a magic, invisible force which makes it acceptable for the United States to arm insurgents but acceptable for anyone else to do it, we are guiltier than China.
by Applerod on Fri Jun 15, 07 3:17pm [+]

(+un)
by Applerod on Fri Jun 15, 07 3:21pm [+]

^ and there is always one person who can't respect a simple request

"stay on topic here kids and focus on the issue at hand -- china supplying arms to these groups."

thanks dude, but you didn't address the ballot topic. anyone could divert attention to the ballot and talk about the huge arms sales russia makes to countries like iran. blah, blah, blah. but that's not what the ballot topic is about, is it? no, it's a b o u t china selling arms to iran and afghanistan. damn, can't any halfwit stay focused on a topic without diverting it to be about the usa. putz.
by Kev24 on Fri Jun 15, 07 5:33pm [+]

Your not a nice person kev24. As far as i can see Applerod stuck to the point in question. Point being. can we trust china? His point was we cant trust america so what fucking difference does it make. Seems to me your insults stick to yourself for your lack of simple understanding.

I, and i assume many others, knew exactly what he was getting at.

is it the fault of others that you aren't intelligent enough to understand the replies kev24?
by quirk99 on Fri Jun 15, 07 6:39pm [+]

^ mobsie, i'm not a nice person? yeah, right, like i will take your opinion on that seriously. the fact is, i ask a question "more proof that we can't trust china?" i did not say "no, we can't trust them" and i didn't say "yes, we can trust them." did i? no.

i posted an article and clearly requested that people stick to the topic that is presented in the news piece. so instead of your usual drivel about the intelligence of others, maybe you can for once get that stick out of your ass and admit that while his comment is intelligent, it is not on topic. i know you're obsessive nature of hating all things american prevents you from being sane - or it's the booze, the fact remains that his comment has nothing to do with the ballot topic that i presented, which once again, is in relation to this new piece of china supplying arms to the insurgents in iraq and afghanistan.

now if you can find any editorial in that piece by me in which i take a stance one way or another that would open the topic up to applerod's point, then fine. but there's not.

so it seems pretty simple that i ask (and for you, i'll post this once again, since you like to ignore facts) "stay on topic here kids and focus on the issue at hand -- china supplying arms to these groups."

can you process that, or are you unable to do so since you are biased. so mobsie, thanks for your input, but once again, your viscious attack mode is in full gear and you're unable to be rationale.

to help you better understand sport, if i put up a ballot asking "does anyone have a good recipe for brownies" and someone posts "no, but here's a recipe for lime flavored jello." well gee, thanks, but the topic is a recipe for brownies.

see the distinction? doubt you do. now buzz off. now that i know you're trolled back mobsie, i'll be sure to avoid you.
by Kev24 on Fri Jun 15, 07 7:59pm [+]

"No country in the world has provided a larger source of funds, training, and weapons to "insurgents" (such fine lines between insurgent and ally) than the United States. Probably the best, most significant example of this can be found in the proxy war with Afghanistan, when we employed the Afghan jihadi movement known as the Mujahideen against the Soviets."

okay, applerod, maybe you should make a ballot on this topic. it's not that i don't think you are making valid points -- you are. but the reason why i want to focus on the issue of china arming insurgents in iraq and afghanistan is for numerous reasons. one, the examples you offer up is in some ways, different. there existed a state of war between the west and the soviet union -- the cold war. that's why proxy war is such a good way to describe it. the same could be said for the soviets arming the communist insurgents in nicargua, grenada and cuba, to name just a few. or we could look at china and russia arming the vietcong.

so when it comes to arms sales, anyone could crticize the united states, russia and even france for that matter.

but in this context, there is a sub-plot. namely, china's official policy is to not interfere in the affairs of any country -- their official stance is that all of their military is for defensive purposes and they regularly claim that they will not interfere in the conflict, politics, etc., of a soverign nation. but they are.

so from the perspective of this ballot, it's not at all about whether we have armed insurgents, since we never hid that fact. it was very public knowledge that we did -- the issue of this ballot is on china and does the discovery of these arms shipments signal something ominous, in that they are actually arming insurgents that in effect, is a proxy war against us. so what are thier motives?

that's pretty much where this ballot should be headed, and is one reason why i offered no personal opinion -- the fact is, china is saying one thing and acting another. that's not to say most major powers don't do this -- but it is to say that from a global perspective, we're seeing more of this from china and that has implications on an international level. hope that clears up my pov.
by Kev24 on Fri Jun 15, 07 9:04pm [+]

There is nothing wrong with criticizing China, just as there is nothing wrong with criticizing US or any other country that we think is doing wrong, I went off topic too kev, but if it’s true China is supplying the insurgency that are fighting allied forces, than of course, unless you are for the other side , that’s a problem.

It would be very sad if NATO and other countries know this is happening but look the other way, continue sending troops in harms way, continue allowing Chinese products Which finance the Chinese government that might be financing the insurgency that are fighting against our forces

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I didn’t read all the comments here, but am just saying my opinion.
by larrynelmira on Sat Jun 16, 07 4:51am [+]

Voted : proof that we can't trust china
Wish I could say that this surprises me. China's been arming rebels in Africa since he 70s.
by Truthseeker013 on Sat Jun 16, 07 5:36am [+]

lol, believe it or not kev, I was in bed last night and you came to mind, not in a sexual way:) but I realized how off topic I got with this ballot, I think I did it again with my previous comment.

I do see what you are saying though, ballots can be made about USA supplying insurgents, in fact they have been made many times, if China is doing what the ballot says, that too should be brought light.

We are suppose to care about what we feel are wrong doings by all nations, not just wrong doings of USA
by larrynelmira on Sat Jun 16, 07 6:47am [+]

"so what are their motives?"

What do you think their motives are?

by Applerod on Sat Jun 16, 07 2:47pm [+]

i think their motives are just like ours and just like russias and france when they sell arms to qustionable customers -- profit and influence behind the scenes to effect an outcome. but when i learn more about what china does, it's not that it surprises me, it's more that they seem to have gotten away with denying it and putting on a face of "we don't interfere in other countries" when in fact, they do.

i don't belive in letting people or countries off the hook through moral relativism. if someone wants to make a ballot about russia's arms deals, or america's or france's, etc., cool. this instance i think that people are finally waking up to the fact that china has a very agressive mandate to become a major player on the world stage through economics, military and cultural means. but for them to act all innocent to the public raises my suspicions. since you brought the u.s.a into, for the most part, our arms sales are very rarely secret and when it came to arming the rebles in afghanistan against the soviets, that was no secret. so here's china helping to perpetuate all of the turmoil, while doing deals with us and all the while just denying it. so the question is, what level of trust does that create?
by Kev24 on Sat Jun 16, 07 3:35pm [+]

poor mobsie, still an angry drunk --


sigh
your just a total prick mate... your a fucking drama queen. the ballots are irrelevent its just so you can strut your ego around. Best of all you block me from responding and then have a rant that i cant reply to. you fucking moron.

i see you still aren't much of a man even for a fag.
quirk99 (bestandworst.com) on 8:20pm Jun 16, 2007


^ i see you're still a loser with a chip on his shoulder. poor pathetic nothing. i'd call you a has-been, but that would mean that at one time, you were something.

ahh, what the hell "has-been."

jealousy is a terrible thing mobise -- almost as ugly as you.
by Kev24 on Sun Jun 17, 07 8:12am [+]






About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved