Posted on 11/8/01 11:27 AM Pacific by FreepForever

1 posted on 11/8/01 11:27 AM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There is no reason on God's green earth for Clinton not to be in custody. None.

2 posted on 11/8/01 11:30 AM Pacific by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

No "double standards" on terrorism...hmmm we're certainly making bold strides in that direction, aren't we...

3 posted on 11/8/01 11:33 AM Pacific by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I remember reading somewhere that Clinton had signed an Executive Order saying: “In the interest of world peace, the USA would absorb a first strike by a nuclear aggressor.....”. Could anyone of you verify this?

If true, which US cities did he plan to sacrifice? New York, Chicago or San Francisco? I just can’t imagine that a President can sell out his country like this. This is out right treason. Is his real intention to drill Americans to survive a nuclear first strike? Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

Keep Awake!

4 posted on 11/8/01 11:34 AM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I wonder how one translates pre-emptive strike into Mandarin.

5 posted on 11/8/01 11:35 AM Pacific by struwwelpeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Clinton is more guilty of treason than Benedict Arnold....

6 posted on 11/8/01 11:38 AM Pacific by chemainus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Dong Feng 31, or "East Wind,"

Why does "East Wind, Rain" set off my alarm bells? Wasn't it the code phrase that the Japanese Navy relayed to say they were in position to attack Pearl Harbor? Or maybe that the attack was succesful?

7 posted on 11/8/01 11:38 AM Pacific by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I wonder how one translates pre-emptive strike into Mandarin.

Pre-emtive strike BUMP.

8 posted on 11/8/01 11:39 AM Pacific by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Our warheads, our guidence systems, thx Bill

9 posted on 11/8/01 11:39 AM Pacific by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks Slick Willie you Communist Traitorous Scumbag!

10 posted on 11/8/01 11:40 AM Pacific by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Oh sure there is. Who would the media follow around all day?? ;)

11 posted on 11/8/01 11:40 AM Pacific by I_Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

"The Dong Feng 31 reportedly is equipped with U.S. missile and warhead technology that was obtained by China through espionage and legal and illegal technology transfers from the Clinton administration"

Need we say more!!

12 posted on 11/8/01 11:40 AM Pacific by NC Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Amen

13 posted on 11/8/01 11:42 AM Pacific by Hillary's Folly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

The Chinese Army Second Artillery Corps is preparing to test its new Dong Feng 31, or "East Wind," ICBM during the next few days.

Deploying a big missile named "Dong", eh?

I'm reminded of the line from the movie "Shrek": "Would you say they're compensating for something?"

14 posted on 11/8/01 11:42 AM Pacific by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You forgot to mention Bernie Swartz at Loral. He's another traitor s.o.b. that exported previously classified missle technology to the chi coms

15 posted on 11/8/01 11:46 AM Pacific by RVS_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

An old article from the BBC (July 6, 2000):

US missiles: China's view By James Miles:

Should the United States decide to go ahead with the deployment of a National Missile Defence (NMD) system, the country's relations with China would undoubtedly be seriously undermined.

This could lead to heightened tensions over a range of issues from weapons proliferation to Taiwan.

But it is unlikely that China's own plans to modernise its nuclear arsenal would be substantially affected. Despite US attempts to justify the NMD programme by citing threats from 'rogue' states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, Beijing, in public at least, describes it as nothing other than a disguised attempt to render China's small nuclear arsenal useless as deterrent against the United States.

It is believed that China has only about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets across the United States and another 20 or so that could reach the US northwest and northern Pacific. If the NMD system works as advertised these could easily be knocked out.

In practice, however, these particular missiles have long been of little if any deterrent value as far as the US is concerned. They are located in silos that are vulnerable to pre-emptive strike, whether nuclear or conventional. They are powered by volatile liquid fuel which is stored separately from the rockets.

Furthermore, China does not have the early warning capability to detect a nuclear attack in time to launch its ICBMs before they are knocked out.

'New generation'

Beijing did not begin to deploy ICBMs capable of reaching America until the early 1980s. It had conducted its first successful nuclear test in 1964 at the height of the Sino-Soviet rift and indeed well into the 1980s it had continued to regard Russia as posing the biggest nuclear threat. It was only in the 1990s that the United States began to emerge in Beijing's view as the foremost potential enemy.

In order to make what it calls its "limited nuclear deterrent" force more credible, therefore, China has been engaged in recent years in a modernisation programme aimed at enabling its ICBMs to survive a pre-emptive strike and stand a reasonable chance of penetrating an adversary's defences.

This has involved developing the ability to fire the missiles from mobile launchers and equip them with multiple warheads. The new generation of Chinese ICBMs likely to be deployed within the coming decade will be solid fuelled and easier to launch at short notice.

It would have been naïve of China to engage in such an upgrading of its nuclear arsenal without building in the possibility that the US would deploy anti-ballistic missile systems. Should America go ahead with NMD deployment, therefore, China's plans are unlikely to be drastically altered.

It was already likely that China would increase the number of its long range warheads by a factor of 10 or more in the coming years. This would not impose a crippling economic burden on China and would remain consistent with its doctrine of "limited nuclear deterrence," i.e. maintaining only just enough nuclear weapons to deter a potential aggressor.

Chinese 'suspicions'

China has responded with similar anger towards US proposals for a Theatre Missile Defence system to protect its forces in East Asia, particularly towards suggestions that such a system should embrace Taiwan.

But again it is unlikely that actual deployment of TMD would lead to a major change in China's plans for missile deployment. Beijing has already positioned about 200 short range ballistic missiles on the coast facing Taiwan and the number is increasing by about 50 a year - easily enough to penetrate any missile defence system that the US might put in place.

Beijing would therefore regard an American decision to press ahead with NMD or TMD more as a political rather than a military challenge. At a time of growing suspicions in Beijing that Washington is bent on "containing" China and dominating the post Cold War order indefinitely, such a decision would be seen as further evidence of America's "hegemonistic" ambitions.

This could further damage the already deeply troubled relationship between Beijing and Washington and make it more difficult for the two sides to co-operate on key issues of concern to the United States, not least the handling of the Taiwan issue and the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

It is unlikely that China would respond by flagrantly violating international arms control agreements. But it would certainly feel even more inclined to exploit the grey areas of such accords as US officials believe it does at present by transferring missile technology to Pakistan and Iran.

16 posted on 11/8/01 11:48 AM Pacific by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There is no reason on God's green earth for Clinton not to be in custody. None.

Amen... VRWC members like myself have been trying to wake America up about the danger to our national security by clinton & his pack of enablers for years.

You can find plenty of info here:

-Alamo-Girl's excellent collection of Clinton & more! Links--

-Softwar!-- has tons of National Security info-

-Bill Gertz's Site-- China/Panama/ & more

-The Center for Security Policy--

-Links for Missile Defense- Nuke News--

17 posted on 11/8/01 11:51 AM Pacific by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks for the article

"It is believed that China has only about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets across the United States and another 20 or so that could reach the US northwest and northern Pacific."

Only 40? Is that enough to cover all the major US cities and military targets?

18 posted on 11/8/01 11:56 AM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

It seemed like an ordinary morning, as he tuned his receiver to the station and began transcribing what he heard. At 8 a.m. he received the message he had been waiting for. It seemed to be nothing more than a regional weather forecast, the kind that the stations he monitored transmitted every day during their news broadcasts. But Briggs, alone among the radio operators at Cheltenham, knew what the three words meant. They meant that the world was going to change in unpredictable but cataclysmic ways. They meant that many of his friends and countrymen would soon be dead. They meant that America would never be the same again.

The three words were casually spoken during the regular news and weather feature from Radio Tokyo, Japan. The words were "East Wind, Rain." Briggs immediately teletyped the message to Washington. "East Wind, Rain" was one of three possible "execute" messages which Japanese diplomats around the world had been alerted to begin listening for on November 19th. They were told to monitor the regular news and weather broadcasts from Tokyo, just as they always did, but to pay especially careful attention to the phraseology employed to describe the weather.

20 posted on 11/8/01 12:06 PM Pacific by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

TRAITOR!!!!!!!TERRORIST LOVER!!!!!!!!ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!!

21 posted on 11/8/01 12:07 PM Pacific by KYwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

RadioFR Every Thursday at 9PM EST/6PM PST
Radio Schedule and Link to Live Broadcast!
Tonight Nov 8th Show Host: The Shrew

RadioFR Archives, Hear the shows you missed
Sept 27th, 2001 AnnaZ,Mercuria
Oct 4th, 2001 Congressman Billybob
Oct 11th, 2001 SUSSA
Oct 18th, 2001 Registered
Oct 25th, 2001 TLBSHOW
Nov 1st, 2001 AnnaZ,Mercuria

22 posted on 11/8/01 12:07 PM Pacific by 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thank you. You are awesome!

23 posted on 11/8/01 12:11 PM Pacific by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

If we are truly going to hold those who have enabled, funded, and harbored terrorists accountable, why haven't x42 and algwhore been arrested?

24 posted on 11/8/01 12:20 PM Pacific by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Why does "East Wind, Rain" set off my alarm bells? Wasn't it the code phrase that the Japanese Navy relayed to say they were in position to attack Pearl Harbor? Or maybe that the attack was succesful?

It was the code to inform Japanese embassy in the US to destroy all secret documents and codes because of a imminent war with the U.S. It was issued at 8 am EST, December 4, 1941. There were two other possible codes in the series:
"North Wind, Cloudy," it meant war with the Soviet Union.
"West Wind, Clear," it meant war with the British Empire. (I don't know if this one was sent)

Two pages I found with this information are: East Wind, Rain; Treason at Pearl Harbor and Translation of message to Japanese embassy informing them of the code

Climb Mount Niitaka was the order to the Japanese fleet to attack Pearl Harbor.

Tora, tora, tora was the code meaning that the attack had achieved complete surprise.

25 posted on 11/8/01 12:21 PM Pacific by KarlInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks!
I remember "Climb Mount Niitaka".
For some reason it's what I think whenever I see a really tall beautiful lady...

;^)

26 posted on 11/8/01 12:30 PM Pacific by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

PDD/NSC 60 - Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy Guidance [Presidential Decision Directives - PDD]

PDD/NSC 60
Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy Guidance

November 1997

NOTE: the actual text of this document is classified TS/ESI [TOP SECRET / EXTREMELY SENSITIVE INFORMATION] and is likely to remain so for many years to come.

While the directive does not address arms control issues, per se, analysis undertaken in accordance with the new guidance shows that the U.S. strategic deterrent can be maintained at the 2,000 to 2,500 strategic weapon level envisioned for START III as agreed in the 1997 Helsinki accord.

• WARNER: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT MUST BE PURSUED STEP-BY-STEP 31 March 1998
• One Step Forward Arms Control Today November 1997
• Miscalculated Ambiguity: US Policy on the Use and Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons By Stephen I. Schwartz Disarmament Diplomacy -- Issue No 23
• US Downsizes Its Nuclear-Weapon Ambitions Jonathan S. Landay, The Christian Science Monitor Wednesday December 24, 1997

27 posted on 11/8/01 12:35 PM Pacific by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

The missile has an official range of over 4,800 miles. .......THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED THE LONG DONG.

28 posted on 11/8/01 12:37 PM Pacific by latrans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks a million, vmat, for the information. I'll go to the resources to have a look too. Thanks again.

29 posted on 11/8/01 12:44 PM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

e Dong Feng 31 reportedly is equipped with U.S. missile and warhead technology that was obtained by China through espionage and legal and illegal technology transfers from the Clinton administration. It is expected that the Chinese army will declare the DF-31 operational within the next 12 months.

Thanks a lot Bill!

30 posted on 11/8/01 1:12 PM Pacific by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

They need to name their missile Clinton One, or something like that.

31 posted on 11/8/01 1:20 PM Pacific by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Go Here to check all executive orders.

32 posted on 11/8/01 1:54 PM Pacific by feinswinesuksass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

--yes, they changed policy. It's a still classified presidential directive,a PDD- and as far as I know-and I could be wrong on it-bush hasn't changed it any. Here's a small quote:

" Arms Control Today November/December 1997 Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine

Craig Cerniello

THE CLINTON a dministration quietly made a significant change in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence.

In a December 23 interview, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons against a chemical or biological weapons attack.

New Guidelines Due to its highly classified nature, many specific details about the PDD have not been made public. Nevertheless, Bell confirmed that "We have made an important change in terms of strategic nuclear doctrine in reorienting our presidential guidance away from any sense that you could fight and win a protracted nuclear war to a strategic posture that focuses on deterrence."

The administration made the decision to rewrite the old nuclear guidelines early in 1997. At that time, General John Shalikashvili, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to President Clinton that the United States could not reduce its nuclear arsenal to the level that was being discussed for START III (2,000 to 2,500 deployed strategic warheads) and carry out the objectives of the 1981 nuclear guidelines. Bell pointed out that this assumed that the goals of the old guidelines could ever have been realized—a skepticism that has been voiced by former Reagan administration officials. Hence, one key factor influencing the administration's decision to rewrite the old guidelines was that they were not compatible with the U.S. objective of achieving further strategic force reductions with the Russians. Moreover, the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, Bell said the 1981 directive "reads like a document you would expect to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not something that you would want operative today...."

Launch on Warning Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said."

I added the bold at the end. The entire page is here

I first heard about this late one night, listening to Joel Skousen being interviewed on the art bell show. Art didn't believe him, but his webmaster looked up the newspaper article and confirmed it on air. Tell ya, 15 million people instantly got an eyeopener on the klinggoon then, even beyond all the previous ones. "launch on confirmation of being blown up" is more like it. Weirdness!

33 posted on 11/8/01 2:26 PM Pacific by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Why is Bush on the verge of doing a major cut to the United States' Nuclear Arsenal? re: ABM-NMD- China Long Dong Clintoon Nuke.

34 posted on 11/8/01 2:38 PM Pacific by trank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Everything essential was explained here long ago

35 posted on 11/8/01 2:56 PM Pacific by Milosevic2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There are several here who said something like, "Thanks, Bill." Remember, one man can do very little. He had and still has a lot of supporters. It makes me very sad for our country. We will pay and pay and pay for what he and his friends were able to do in only 8 short years.

36 posted on 11/8/01 2:57 PM Pacific by Gordian Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

We need to nuke them now. Our window of opportunity is being drastically reduced.

37 posted on 11/8/01 2:58 PM Pacific by Operation Infinite Jumble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks a bunch for your information, Zog. Nice to see you here again.

Personally, I view this policy as an "invitation" to a nuclear first strike. Let me hear your thought.

I am working on a topic on US's reactions in case of a Chinese strike. If you find any related material. Just flag me.

Thanks again, pal!

38 posted on 11/8/01 3:06 PM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

the USA would absorb a first strike by a nuclear aggressor

Since we have no defense against ballistic missles, we would have no choice. The choice is three fold: do nothing, strike back after the warheads explode, strike back while the warheads are still on the way. None of them saves anybody of course, unless the targets of the strike are yet more missles. Even then the other side will likely launch all they've got right away, or once they see the retaliatory strike coming back.

IMHO, we must have a defense that actually defends. ASAP, even if that means the defense itself uses nuclear warheads such that "close" is good enough. That we could do back in the 1960s, with Safeguard's Sprint and Spartan ABMs. A non nulcear defense would be nice, but if that means waiting a decade before begining to deploy it, I don't think it's worth the wait, becasue I don't think we have that long.

39 posted on 11/8/01 3:17 PM Pacific by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

DONG FENG - EAST WIND/JULANG - GREAT WAVE

40 posted on 11/8/01 3:18 PM Pacific by 2sheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Nuking them now is not the answer. The most important thing is make them aware of the heavy cost they have to pay by lanuching a nuclear first strike on US soil. First, President Bush has to rescind Clinton's treasoneous nuclear weapon policy Second, he has to send a messsage in the strongest term to China (and all hostile nations) that retaliation with the force of 200% total annihilation will be guaranteed once America has detected any incoming ICBM, before actual detonation. Meaning: you are signing your own death warrant if you touch that button.

41 posted on 11/8/01 3:22 PM Pacific by FreepForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Greatly appreciate that link & will add it to my update of DUBOB 9 for all to see!

42 posted on 11/8/01 3:23 PM Pacific by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

>There is no reason on God's green earth for Clinton not to be in custody. None.

God created evil and the waster to destroy.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

When a people...any people, even a nation which considers itself "Christian"...run amuck and are disobedient and become evil, they are given evil leaders to rule over them and evil people brought against them by God in judgment.  In the U.S. the leaders just change parties every few years but are all dancing to the left and socialism.  Read Lev. 26, Deut. 28:45 ff. for a start on how God judges people.  I had a dream of Bush driving a bus and then something bad happened and Clinton took over.  You don't have to let your mind run wild on that concept to imagine that would be a bad day for conservatives and Christians.

The command that went forth to Noah et al. was to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth and mankind got their Tower of Babel knocked down when they wanted to do none of those three things.  America-Babylon is a nation which has forgotten God, is unfruitful and is in minus mode deleting babies by abortion.  By man's hand shall his blood be shed.  You do recall the principle of the millstone.

Ps 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that **forget God.**

Ge 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The above makes perfect sense about why He can judge a nation and uses men to do it.  God loves mercy AND judgment.  We are to behold the goodness AND severity of God.  Most people just want to behold the goodness.  Time to listen up!

De 28:45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
...
49 The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
...
Click on this to look it up: 
or here:  The Tanakh: Jewish Publication Society (JPS 1917)

43 posted on 11/8/01 3:33 PM Pacific by 2sheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Freepers are accustomed to always resorting to the "Nuke China" first option. This only shows they're rather dim and unsophisticated. China has no plans to even pose any military threat to America over the next several decades. All China intends to do is sit there, grow its economy, and wait while China's GDP surpasses America's. The best way to win is without fighting, according to Sun Tzu. China will beat America at its own game -- capitalism -- and this is also the case if China one day adopts democracy. If China adopted democracy, that might not be a bad idea, because it gives China-bashers one less reason to bash China about, while China's economy still continues to outpace America's. Americans don't like Chinese whether they're democratic or not.

44 posted on 11/8/01 3:40 PM Pacific by amory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There is no reason on God's green earth for Clinton not to be in custody.

AND AWAITING TRIAL FOR TREASON!

45 posted on 11/8/01 3:42 PM Pacific by republicandiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Brave words around FR. Thanks. If this doesn't bring people to their knees, nothing will.

46 posted on 11/8/01 3:44 PM Pacific by Prodigal Daughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Sun Tzu's been dead for a while. He might be popular over here, but I don't think he's on their bestseller list anymore.

47 posted on 11/8/01 3:46 PM Pacific by Prodigal Daughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

What is your point? The fact of the matter is that China does really intend to concentrate on its economic development primarily over the next several decades.

48 posted on 11/8/01 3:48 PM Pacific by amory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Chinese are prudent. As the article states, they're not going to do anything stupid like engage in any expensive arms race. Just enough missiles to make America think twice about making any first strike on China is sufficient. In the meantime, let America suffer "imperial overstretch" and bankrupt itself by continuing to try to be global policeman, while trying to bear a $6 trillion national debt timebomb, baby-boomers' Social Security and Medicare budget onslaught starting in 2008, Bush's back-ended massive tax cuts starting in 2006, and a flat US stock market through 2015 according to Warren Buffett to boot.

49 posted on 11/8/01 3:56 PM Pacific by amory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

That should just reach Fairbanks. Thanks, Slick.

50 posted on 11/8/01 3:59 PM Pacific by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[ Threads | Comments | Self-Search | Search | Topics / Post | Settings | Help! ]