Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
In this case China is clearly following precedent set by the United States.
The Chinese communist government requires no lessons from anybody on how to play rough these days. When they were interested on the insights from others years ago they had the communist Soviet government to mentor them.
Bush was president, but he's been long gone, I suggest moving on. The Chinese were difficult long before he was in office. Ask the Vietnamese, the Chinese invaded them after being an ally during the Vietnam War. The US also fought them in the Korean War.
Actually his post contained considerable nonsense as I point out in my other post in this subthread.
As to your link, I suggest that anyone that reads it pays careful attention to the British inquiries section.
They may also want to do some follow up reading, or maybe even start here first:
Sorry, but at least half of that or more is baloney.
Saddam and Iraq were quite open about supporting terrorism, they just had little to do with al Qaida. Have you heard of Abu Nidal? He was once the most wanted man in the world, and Iraq gave him and his organization refuge. Iraq paid bounties for suicide bombers. Iraq trained terrorists. They were very much involved with it over the years.
Your claims about WMD are also off base. The only reason the Iraqis didn't still have WMD was because after they had successfully fooled the inspectors for years they secretly disposed of their remaining ones - mainly VX nerve gas IIRC, which they had denied ever having. Saddam then had the Iraqi state act as if it still did have something to hid to fool Iran. He figured that Iran would be fooled and the West wouldn't have the resolve to take action. That error in judgment led to his undoing.
Iraq was a slaughter ground for al Qaida, and cost them dearly in terms of support in the Muslim world. Once other Muslims in the region got to see up close how al Qaida behaved in areas it controlled in Iraq, their support plummeted. They lost a lot of men, material, money, and supporting networks. It gave them a huge black eye and they had to flee. Why do you think Afghanistan started heating up again? No small part of that was al Qaida fleeing Iraq with many of them going to Afghanistan and the surrounding region.
And lets not forget the totally corrupt "Oil for Food" program that Saddam was diverting funds from to buy weapons, build dozens of palaces, and bribe diplomats and governments around the world to work his way out of sanctions. It was gradually working and it seems clear that Saddam would have resumed his quest to rearm with WMDs after working his way clear from sanctions.
You might be surprised to learn that they've added new weapons and tuned existing ones to pretty much take that scenario off the table. If it isn't covered yet, it will be soon. It is a dynamnic process.
Your previous answer and this one are largely nonsense. Nations aren't people, and the ethics that guide us individually aren't necessarily appropriate guidance for the use of the power of a state. Do you personally imprison people? Or tax them? Why not, the state does it? Could it be that you don't have the power to do that, and it isn't appropriate for you to do so? The same thing goes with spying on foreign powers. The state has to do things that you don't.
You hide intelligence operations so they succeed, and the other side doesn't know what you know, and what you don't. That way they don't know your weakness.
Your ideas on this are both faulty and contrary to the long experience of American and other intelligence agencies. I'm sure your ideas have a source, but whatever it is doesn't seem to be a reliable guide to good intelligence practices.
Don't look now
Depends on what it is that needs to be stopped, how badly China wants to do it, and how badly the US wants to stop it. If all that is going on are speeches and radar beams, there isn't much to stop. If China starts sending fighters or missiles into the area, there are things that could be done.
The US plans on keeping 11 carrier strike groups around, for the moment. It is doubtful they would or could all be deployed simultaneously, but even 1 is nothing to sneeze at. China has a variety of things they could try against them, but it is uncertain how effective they would be.
The possibility of miscalculation leading to war is non-trivial if China keeps ratcheting up their aggression.
Link to Original Source
That was gracious of you. I'm honored.
Wait, are you suggesting I'm fat? Nicely played.
Not at all. I have no idea about your personal characteristics, which is why it is indeterminate. For all I know you could be rail thin but suffer from personal distress due to a secret currywurst obsession. Perhaps you leave your apartment each day to search high and low for the elusive perfect currywurst, the one with just the right sausage and sauce to give you a taste of what you imagine heaven could be like, and yet you loath your powerlessness over the habit. Or not.
Some +1 Funny mods do wonders for ones karma, which comes in handy when making controversial positions in more serious exchanges.
Perhaps it changed, but my recollection from reading the FAQ or some other document on Slashdot was that +1 Funny doesn't actually help your karma. That leaves something of a puzzle as to why I would make humorous posts.
I will also note that my named account is getting close to 10 years old, I have a long posting history, and Snowden's misdeeds only came to light about 6 months ago.
Indonesia hardly has grounds to complain since the former head of its national intelligence agency has admitted to tapping the phones of Australian politicians in the past, and that Indonesia taps the phones of many nations.
Besides that, relationships between nations aren't similar to marriages, and Russia's actions aren't the equivalent of just posting on Facebook. And where do you get the idea that nations either don't or "shouldn't" spy on each other? In a perfect world, maybe, but then the world would need to be crime free before you could get there. Is your state crime free?
Let me see if I can give you something closer to the actual context. An unmarried couple (X & Y) of swingers live in an apartment building full of swingers that has an orgy at least once per week. The rule is that you have to choose anyone other than the one that came with you. At this one particular weekly orgy, Mr. Y decided to break the rule during a blindfold game and took Ms. X, his live-in girlfriend, who couldn't see it was him. Mr. Z, who has always fancied Ms. X, took a photo of that rule breaking in progress and posted it on the internet anonymously. Ms. X is upset that the photo is on the internet, unhappy with Mr. Y for breaking the rule, and Mr. Z is using the unhappiness to try to break them up so that Ms. Y will move in with him.
Although that is imprecise, and with further thought might be improved upon, it is closer to the actual situation than your marriage example. I leave it up to you to figure out who Australia, Indonesia, and Russia are in this.
Some messages, not unlike bombs in a storage bunker, are best left where they are. When they are moved to the general public they can become hazardous to all. A number of Snowden's leaks have been widely and badly misinterpreted because the journalists didn't understand the context and actual content of what they were seeing and misreported what it was. As is the case in many instances of bad reporting it is difficult to get the record corrected. The result has problems and widespread anger that didn't need to exist. There may yet be a war that follows from this, or significant consequences in a war or terrorist act that was going to happen anyway. Snowden didn't innocently deliver a message as the saying depicts, but assembled a Pandora's Box for delivery. You may yet come to rue its opening.
Your post is full of "piss," and "vinegar," but could use more insight.