If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   China says: yeah terroists suck, but were still gonna give them weapons   (foxnews.com) divider line 46
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

2814 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2002 at 9:44 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2002-02-21 09:50:11 AM
Where does it say that?

Are only America and Britain allowed to arm mass murdering bstards its allies?
 
2002-02-21 09:50:36 AM
Nice grammer.
 
2002-02-21 09:51:00 AM
Oh terrorists= N. Korea and that whole "axis of evil" crap. Got that after a while. Thought it meant real terrorists who actually pose some kind of threat. Stupid fake headline.
 
2002-02-21 09:53:43 AM
Next time you buy anything, look on the back of it.

like 90% of stuff in stores is made in China...

How is that possible?
 
2002-02-21 09:55:23 AM
- China says -introduce "
- misspelled terrorists
- misplaced comma, should come after suck
- were should be we're
- end with .
Should be:
China says "yeah, terrorists suck, but, we're still gonna give them weapons."
 
2002-02-21 09:57:59 AM
terrorist + maoist = terroist
 
2002-02-21 09:58:49 AM
"02-21-02 09:50:36 AM Marquis

Nice grammer."

Haha! It's grammar, Einstein.
 
2002-02-21 10:14:49 AM
Flamebair I'll bite: there should be a comma before a quoted statement, and the first word in the quote should be capitalized.

China says, "Yeah...."

Also, I don't think a comma after the "but" is proper.



Don't be a grammar nazi.
Oh wait, what does that make ME?
 
2002-02-21 10:19:48 AM
Hmmm... i will have to check about the but, but they may both be correct. Like and. You can use blah blah, and, blah.
 
2002-02-21 10:35:14 AM
A comma after BUT or AND would be incorrect.
 
2002-02-21 10:44:29 AM
In that case I believe it would be incorrect. It would work in a case such as "Yeah, but, as he said, we still want to give them weapons."
 
2002-02-21 10:49:36 AM
A grammer debate, mees no seells so good. More important than the proliferation of wapons,

To big of a word *head explodes*
 
2002-02-21 10:52:57 AM
Wife swapping?

 
2002-02-21 10:54:44 AM
definition of irony:

"As Jiang struggled with the issues, Bush winked knowingly at the U.S. delegation and fought back a grin."
 
jph
2002-02-21 10:58:31 AM
Fine -- if China wants to sell arms to terrorists, then we'll sell advanced weaponry to Taiwan.
 
2002-02-21 11:06:45 AM
JPH, I think you will find that you already do!
 
fb-
2002-02-21 11:08:52 AM
I have no problem with China selling arms or technology. It's their weapons, they should be allowed to do with as they see fit.

I expect my country to continue to do the same.
 
2002-02-21 11:12:42 AM
Hansmoleman: I thought irony was defined as rain on your wedding day or a free ride when you've already paid...
 
fb-
2002-02-21 11:19:15 AM
.. and who would have thought, it figured.
 
2002-02-21 11:25:11 AM
We should never have stopped with japan.
 
2002-02-21 11:26:13 AM
China has the right to sell weapons to whoever they want. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea have the right to buy these weapons. Whether or not these countries possessing these weapons is a good or bad thing is debatable, but it's beside the point. The US sells weapons to its allies and has a huge nuclear stockpile. The US is the country that nuked Japan. The US has no right to dictate to the world who can and can't sell and possess nuclear and other weapons.
 
2002-02-21 11:27:13 AM
America says: yeah terroists suck, but were still gonna give them weapons
 
fb-
2002-02-21 11:37:19 AM
The sale of arms is very, very big business for companies and countries. You can't expect anybody with the capability to mass produce weapons to say no to selling them.

There certainly can be unpleasant consequences to doing so, but that's life. There's money to be made and I support the sale.

Gotta cover your ass though. There's a disclaimer on all those weapons we sell. It reads, "If you use this weapon, or any portion of this weapon to harm, violate or destroy any US serviceman, US citizen or US economic or political interest in any way, shape or form, we will extract revenge on you, not limited to, and including economic sanctions, military invasion, high altitude aerial bombardment, and full retalatory nuclear strikes."
 
2002-02-21 11:45:21 AM
Yeah, and who arms the Maoists terrorists in Nepal?
 
2002-02-21 12:06:39 PM
Fb, that post set off a feeling of deja vu, you got it stored on the clipboard?
 
hlx
2002-02-21 12:14:20 PM
Oh no, America has competition in the "arm the evil bastards" marketplace.
 
2002-02-21 12:18:06 PM
" "If you use this weapon, or any portion of this weapon to harm, violate or destroy any US serviceman, US citizen or US economic or political interest in any way, shape or form, we will extract revenge on you, not limited to, and including economic sanctions, military invasion, high altitude aerial bombardment, and full retalatory nuclear strikes." "

You know how right that is? *jabs fist in air* Yah! American Imperial States! *jabs fist in air* heil! heil!
 
2002-02-21 12:27:27 PM
Old murderers in China sell weapons to faltering Marxist theocracy. In other news, President Bush exempts China from democratic requirements for normal trade relations.

These are Washington's friends, folks.
 
2002-02-21 12:30:25 PM
New murderers in Us govt see weapons to flatering Zionist Theocracy, president Bush exempts Israel from normal rules of war.
 
2002-02-21 12:34:12 PM
New murderers? Where have you been?
 
2002-02-21 12:39:08 PM
the only reason Bush classified N. Korea as a terrorist nation is because a) they have one of the worlds' largest standing armies (4th I believe) and b) they have nuclear capability. Name 3 other countries that resemble that description.
 
fb-
2002-02-21 12:40:39 PM
Harmonia,

Bush decides the rules of war?!?! By the way, what war? Israel declared a formal war?

Harg,

That disclaimer makes Americans nazis?!?!
 
2002-02-21 12:42:29 PM
Unfortunately, Boorite is right. China receives bipartisan approval despite the total lack of freedom for it's people, continued trade and selling of technology and weapons to N Korea and Iran and that, I believe, they helped bring about 9/11. (Oh Lord are people going to b|tch about that last one.)

That having been said, the headline was inaccurate.
 
fb-
2002-02-21 12:56:35 PM
Odietamo,

Really, no proof? Well, as long as you believe it, I'm sold.

China's failures and problems are those for China to fix. Don't blame the US for China's problems. We neither caused them nor do we bare the responsibility for forcing their change.
 
2002-02-21 01:29:03 PM
Bush an't gonna do shait whiles he's still in China!
They'll pee pee in his coke.

Bart Simpson: What happened to you China? You use to be cool.
Jiang: China still cool. China Still COOL!
 
2002-02-21 02:17:49 PM
I think the reason for opening up full trade relations to China is t allow more capitalistic ideologies into their country. If we try to force human rights in China, they'll likely get PO'ed and start a war. If we trade with them enough, they'll have to start allowing more free-market ideas into their country so they can compete on a world market. Hopefully, free-market concepts will slip through to the political sector, and perhaps lead to a slow democratization of the country. But, it's all a theory. Better than war, in my opinion.


On another note, my dad used to work for the DoD....foreign military sales...he approved the checks that other countries used to pay for military hardware. Hundreds of millions of dollars would go through his office on a daily basis. It's a big money-maker for our government.
 
2002-02-21 02:38:45 PM
Come on now. If China hadn't sold weapons to Afghanistan we practically wouldn't have had anything to blow up. It's a win-win situation.

Christ, am I the only one thinking here !!
 
2002-02-21 02:51:42 PM
Fb-
Really, no proof?
I guess "I believe" was a little hard for you to grasp.

Well, as long as you believe it, I'm sold.
You don't have to be "sold". I really don't give a rat's ass about your thoughts.

China's failures and problems are those for China to fix. Don't blame the US for China's problems. We neither caused them nor do we bare the responsibility for forcing their change
We are the big conclusion jumper, aren't we? No wonder you've got a reputation as an /\sshole. When, exactly, did I indicate it was our fault or responsibility? I believe the word I used was "approval".

Approval has a different meaning. As an example, I don't approve of you being a jackass. That doesn't mean I'm saying I made you a jackass. It also doesn't mean I should track you down and beat you for being a jackass. It does mean I shouldn't give you a candy bar and flowers and say "thanks for being a jackass, fb."

We should not be dealing with a communist country. We should not be dealing with a country that oppresses its people and sells arms and weapon techhnology to countries which openly oppose us. This is common sense. We should not be dealing with a country who just recently stole highly classified secrets from us. We most certainly shouldn't give any of the above favored nation trade status.

Assuming you manage a greater understanding of the written word than that which you showed in your reaction to my last post, you'll find NONE of those statements says it is our responsibility to change or that we caused them. The United States should not approve of nor deal with China except in the most limited of ways. That's my opinion. It should be the opinion of every American. Feel free not to agree.
 
2002-02-21 03:32:52 PM
Gee, the U.S. never does this. Not even when it armed Bin Laden in the mid 1980's.
 
2002-02-21 03:50:58 PM
TV's_Frank did type thusly:
I think the reason

...the ostensible reason...:-)

for opening up full trade relations to China is t allow more capitalistic ideologies into their country. If we try to force human rights in China, they'll likely get PO'ed and start a war.

With respect: no. First off, since when does Washington try to "force human rights" on its trading partners or on the recipients of IMF/World Bank "aid?" Quite the opposite. The Feds favor undemocratic governments for such relationships because "the people" would never stand for it. I was watching the Treasury Dept's rhetoric quite closely during the Asian meltdown a few years ago-- fantastic! Second, since when does China start a war over not being granted permanent normalized trade relations? No way.

If we trade with them enough, they'll have to start allowing more free-market ideas into their country so they can compete on a world market. Hopefully, free-market concepts will slip through to the political sector, and perhaps lead to a slow democratization of the country.

Just as they have in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina...

But, it's all a theory.

A theory that falls on its ass in every observed case, and yet we still propagate it. Why? If it's a "failure," why keep doing it? The answer goes all the way back to colonial times. These ideas about "free trade" are nothing new. It's an interesting topic, and I'd be glad to discuss it.

On another note, my dad used to work for the DoD....foreign military sales...he approved the checks that other countries used to pay for military hardware. Hundreds of millions of dollars would go through his office on a daily basis. It's a big money-maker for our government.

There ya go. Cherchez l'argent, dude.
 
2002-02-21 05:09:58 PM
Dude, I typed that while drunk in one of my school's computer labs. It sounded good at the time. And it still does.
 
2002-02-21 05:27:59 PM
Damn, if you have to be in a computer lab, you might as well get drunk!
 
2002-02-21 05:32:12 PM
No, it was the other way around: I was drunk, so I might as well have been in a computer lab!
 
2002-02-21 06:22:19 PM
And which nation actually armed Bin Laden?
And which nation still provides land mines to developing
countries
 
2002-02-21 11:22:01 PM
I don't know about the US arming bin Laden. Weren't they all using AK-47 variants? Those aren't American weapons. Sure, we gave them some stuff back when the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan. (If it's before your time, go watch "Top Secret", where the East Germans slowly morph into Nazis.)

But I don't think we've sent them weapons in at least a decade or so (at least since the Gulf War, where bin Laden got all riled up about Americans on holy soil).

In your haste to Blame America First, don't worry about the truth, we'll be here to point it out.

As for the MFN/China debate, it's very difficult for a country engaging in international trade with free countries to keep a Marxist/Maoist culture at home. Cultural influences and the inevitable economic growth create as large a pressure to liberalize as any treaty or standing army ever did. Can't have economic freedom without social freedom, or vice versa. (See Mont Pellerin Society, Austrian and Chicago schools of economics.)

Don't ask me about Cuba. I can't explain that one.
 
2002-02-21 11:45:32 PM
What if...

I wonder if people will get mad if I say they are acting like stupid fuggin' chinks ?

Hmmm...
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report