Reese et al

[nightbird]

...to be read with that promised open mind of course

firstly.....just a quick plug for a movie none of you have probably heard of...maybe your'd like to moan about this one instead of Moores?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040623/11/p/plkt.html

where to begin........with the administration? currently serving in your Bush administration are people who were either emplyed by, have shares in, who's spouses work for, or who still work for a few big name oil and weaponry companies. Halliburton and the Carlyle group are the ones which come foremost to mind. nothing wrong with that you say?? wellll............considering the money these people woudl stand to gain from a war in Iraq, it does raise some rathar dubious questions. couple that with the relations between Bush and the Bin Laden family, and the Saudi Arabians, you have a few problems.

September 11. a day no one will forget....yet how many of you know that while the World trade centre was being bombed members of the Bin Laden family were present for a meeting held by the Carlyle company? the family which was, quickly flown out of the country, along with other Saudis, ont he day of the bombings. raises a few more questions....why did Bush have them flown out? if he didnt know how had done it by that stage, why fear for the Saudis and bin Ladens? and when he did find out, why nto question them? why go attack Iraq?

could it be beacuase the Saudis are the enemy of Iraq and saudi money is running the Bush Administration?

"The Carlyle Group. The elder George Bush reportedly has an equity stake in this firm, which is run by leading members of his presidential administration.

Maverick Capital Fund. Its investors include Bush Pioneer Charles Wyly and his brother Sam, who gave $210,273 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns.

Bass Brothers Enterprises. Bass family interests funneled $215,000 to Bush and financed a Bahraini drilling contract won by a small oil exploration company where Bush served as a director.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. This corporate buyout firm would soon join Hicks, Muse in a $1.5 billion takeover of Regal Cinemas.

Evercore Partners. Evercore joined Hicks, Muse in a $900 million buyout of television stations soon after its UTIMCO deal.

American Securities Partners. The company won a UTIMCO contract soon after selling eleven radio stations to Hicks, Muse."

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

"On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.”

"But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn’t always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush’s own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.

"In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden’s, in Arbusto.

"In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden.

"If the United States boosts defence spending in its quest to stop Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, his family may be the unexpected beneficiary of that, media reports said. "Among its far-flung business interests, the well-heeled Saudi Arabian clan, which says it is estranged from Laden, is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace companies," The Wall Street Journal said in an investigative dispatch. It said "through this investment and its ties to Saudi royalty, the bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party." "In recent years, former president George H W Bush, ex-secretary of state James Baker and ex-secretary of defence Frank Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family's headquarters in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia). "Ex-president Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners Fund, while Baker is its senior counsellor and Carlucci is the group's chairman," the journal said." --Hindustani Times, 9/28/01

Traveling with the fanfare of dignitaries, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were using their extensive government contacts to further their business interests as representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm based in Washington that has parlayed a roster of former top-level government officials, largely from the Bush and Reagan administrations, into a moneymaking machine.

For instance, Frank C. Carlucci, a Reagan secretary of defense who as much as anyone is responsible for Carlyle's success, said he met in February with his old college classmate Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Vice President Dick Cheney, himself a defense secretary under former President Bush, to talk about military matters -- at a time when Carlyle has several billion-dollar defense projects under consideration

''Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit public interest group based in Washington. ''George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper.''

ok.....so in essence a war in Iraq would profit not only Bush with his shares, but also the Saudi's who support Bush....seems like a great money making scheme doesnt it!!

we also establish that the primary shareholder in the carlyle group held meetings with members of the Bush administration, and that members of the Bush amdinistration inc. bush himself woudl stand to gain a lot of money, even more when the companies they hold shares in are given contracting rights in Iraq.

anyway........war is waged. the reasons given are a pre-emptive strike against Saddam as he is hoarding weapoms of mass destruction and has a nuclear program in place. the UN has people investigating these claims......the US has people investigating these claims. one of the reports which was submitted...the Kay report, details how no WMD's had been found, and how it was highly unlikely that any were to be found. at least that is what the man himself David Kay said in interviews on TV. yet when Bush made his speech, he stated that the Kay report had infact found evidence of a WMD program!! funny how the next day David Kay resigned.

to date no WMD's have been found in Iraq. no nuclear program has been found to have been in place......therfore this leads us to ask, why the hell did Bush want to attack IRaq when the reasons he gave for such are false?!

why didnt he attack the Saudi's? why didnt he attack where bin Laden was from and hiding????

could it be becuase of....~gasps~.....money?

To steer the United States into a preemptive war with a country 6,000 miles away, the Bush administration had to establish five key “facts” in the public’s mind as a precursor to deploying hundreds of thousands of troops and spending billions of dollars in the effort:

1. Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.

2. Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the United States and/or its allies.

3. Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

4. Occupying Iraq would not only be a “cakewalk,” but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.

5. Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

These five lies were hardly arbitrary, but chosen with a clear under-standing of what it takes to overcome the innate isolationism of Americans. To wage war, the American public needs to feel an immediate sense of clear and present danger, be it Pearl Harbor or the menacing presence of Soviet nuclear weapons placed in Cuba. We are poorly educated about the world beyond, but have an innate grasp of power relationships, understanding that if you can’t hurt us we don’t have to think much about you.

You see, according to the Geneva convention, a country can not invade another without that country being a direct threat to them. in other words, Bush could not invade Iraq without the threat of WMD.s or terrorist links...which begs the question......why was an invasion of Iraq on the cards from his father's days in office? sept 11 had not happened then.

then there is the international criminal court, which the US tried to make itself immune too.

Shortly before the entry into force of the Rome Statute in July 2002, the United States launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals. As part of its efforts, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs),

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/USandICC/BIAs.html

Another facet of this crusade against the Court is the adoption of US legislation known as the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA).

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/USandICC/ASPA.html

This law, passed by Congress in August 2002, contains provisions restricting US cooperation with the ICC; making US support of peacekeeping missions largely contingent on achieving impunity for all US personnel; and even granting the President permission to use “any means necessary” to free US citizens and allies from ICC custody (prompting the nickname “The Hague Invasion Act”). The legislation also contains waivers that make all of these provisions non-binding, however, the Bush administration has been using these waivers as bargaining chips to pressure countries around the world into concluding bilateral immunity agreements – or otherwise lose essential US military assistance.

and then finally, after trying to become immune........

Media Advisory - June 23, 2004 (New York)

Global Support for the International Criminal Court Reaffirmed Legitimacy of the Security Council preserved WHAT:

After weeks of negotiations and faced with continued opposition, the US government withdrew its request for renewal of the Security Council resolution exempting its peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This was announced after informal consultations during which it became clear that a last-minute US-proposed compromise text would not get the required support.

so why did the Bush admin want to be exempt???

why did the Bush admin feel that america was above and beyond answering to the international communty?

could it be becuase of........PNAC ?

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

........a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

this might sound fantastic to you. you are an american afterall. however, as a non american let me tell you, I do NOT like the idea of some country massing weapons for the purpose of their own security, and taking it to the point of inflicting invasion and war upon the rest of the world if they do not meet with their principles, OR for some money making scheme. I do NOT agree with america challenging ANYONE who is hostile to their interests. Im sorry, but america does not rule the world, and if some country is doing just fine on their own, but they wont sell america oil....then america has no rght to invade.

american principles do NOT need to be promoted abroad. there are many cultures and many countries on this planet, most of which who manage fine without being american. We do nto need american global leadership, neither do we need american values pushed onto us.

so all of this stuff is happening within the Bush admin, and Bush is allowing it to happen. there is a mountain of more "evidence" out there, but I am tired and its late and I need to sleep for work tomorrow. I suggest you look at some of these sites....they will also offer insight to you.

www.truthout.com

www.informationclearinghouse.info/

www.alternet.org/

oh and watch the World according to Bush. it might just surprise you!!!

[+joc]

BUSH 2004!!!!!

[Stamford]

Phew, answer that one nightbird

[nightbird]

answer what one?

[wunarmdscissor]

BUSH 2004!!!!!

I believe stamnford was being sarcastic about jocs extremley in depth and enlightening answer.

[Talon]

jocs extremley in depth and enlightening answer.

I'm afraid Nightbird you have to understand that no matter how much evidence you place in front of them, no matter how good your argument some people's response will simply be to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Blood Angel]

Bush being kicked out the whitehouse 2004!!! Edited July 28, 2004 by Blood Angel

[reese2]

Bush being kicked out the whitehouse 2004!!!

Too funny BA.... LMFEAO....

Nightbird- I am going to be reading all that you posted, ok? Ijust wanted to reply really quickly to let you know that if I don't reply right away, it is because I will be reading everything... Thanks for posting it, and I will look at it completely objectively.

Reese

[Nxt2Hvn]

Bush being kicked out the whitehouse 2004!!!

Yeah... because Kerry won THREE PURPLE HEARTS

Whatever!!!!!

[wunarmdscissor]

Yeah... because Kerry won THREE PURPLE HEARTS

Whatever!!!!! 

Ahh but you see most people in the world vote through ideaology, policies and by weighing up the pros and cons of any particular govt.

However it obv doesnt seem to work like thi is ameirca.

[Blood Angel]

Bush being kicked out the whitehouse 2004!!!

Yeah... because Kerry won THREE PURPLE HEARTS

Whatever!!!!!

No its because kerry stands for a better america, bush stands for a better american elite buisness men.

[KindredSpirt4125]

I just want to say, that Osama Bin Laden is the "black sheep" of his family. They don't even talk to him. So, when they say the Bush's have ties with the Bin Laden family, it does not mean Osama himself. Just because one of them is a terrorist doesn't mean their whole family is tainted. Geez.

Edited July 28, 2004 by crystal3rose

[reese2]

Crystal-

What you just said does make good sense, unfortunately you are always going to find people that blow things out of proportion to suit their take on things... Happens on both sides..

Reese

[Stellar]

where to begin........with the administration? currently serving in your Bush administration are people who were either emplyed by, have shares in, who's spouses work for, or who still work for a few big name oil and weaponry companies. Halliburton and the Carlyle group are the ones which come foremost to mind. nothing wrong with that you say?? wellll............considering the money these people woudl stand to gain from a war in Iraq, it does raise some rathar dubious questions. couple that with the relations between Bush and the Bin Laden family, and the Saudi Arabians, you have a few problems.

Sure, it might make a few questions pop into the minds of some, but that alone is not proof of anything. If Kerry will be elected and he invades another country, should we complain that he's just going there for the ketchup?

September 11. a day no one will forget....yet how many of you know that while the World trade centre was being bombed members of the Bin Laden family were present for a meeting held by the Carlyle company? the family which was, quickly flown out of the country, along with other Saudis, ont he day of the bombings. raises a few more questions....why did Bush have them flown out? if he didnt know how had done it by that stage, why fear for the Saudis and bin Ladens? and when he did find out, why nto question them?

I did hear about that actually. The family was flown out on September 13th and authorisation never reached the president. It only got up to one of his "minions" as you people call them. Why did Bush fly them out? Well, they're good friends to the family and I know that people might start threatening them if they stay... Oh and I believe they were questioned by the CIA aboard the flight. Are you accusing Bush of collaborating with the terrorists who hijaked the planes on 9/11?

could it be beacuase the Saudis are the enemy of Iraq and saudi money is running the Bush Administration?

No. But actually Clinton made it a law that each president has to come up with plans to overthrow Hussein. I dont think the Bush Admin attacked Iraq just cuz the Saudis asked them politely.

ok.....so in essence a war in Iraq would profit not only Bush with his shares, but also the Saudi's who support Bush....seems like a great money making scheme doesnt it!!

we also establish that the primary shareholder in the carlyle group held meetings with members of the Bush administration, and that members of the Bush amdinistration inc. bush himself woudl stand to gain a lot of money, even more when the companies they hold shares in are given contracting rights in Iraq.

And??? That still does not *prove* anything.

anyway........war is waged. the reasons given are a pre-emptive strike against Saddam as he is hoarding weapoms of mass destruction and has a nuclear program in place.

As well as his plotting terrorist actions (Confirmed by Russian SS), as well as torturing innocent people, as well as his murdering innocent people.

the UN has people investigating these claims......the US has people investigating these claims. one of the reports which was submitted...the Kay report, details how no WMD's had been found, and how it was highly unlikely that any were to be found. at least that is what the man himself David Kay said in interviews on TV.

He also said that there was a high probability that the weapons were transfered to Syria shortly before the war when a large convoy of trucks were seen entering Syria from Iraq.

yet when Bush made his speech, he stated that the Kay report had infact found evidence of a WMD program!! funny how the next day David Kay resigned.

Actually, they did infact find evidence of WMD programs. Kay never said anything about WMD programs in what you quoted him on, he was talking about the weapons.

to date no WMD's have been found in Iraq.

Not many you mean? Over a dozen Sarin filled warheads were found (all but 2 inoperational due to long storage) and a chemical bomb was used against US forces in Iraq.

no nuclear program has been found to have been in place

Actually, its been confirmed that SH attempted to buy uranium from Nigeria. Thanks for mentioning that.

therfore this leads us to ask, why the hell did Bush want to attack IRaq when the reasons he gave for such are false?!

Lets focus stricly on WMDs for this one... cuz I have a feeling thats what you want to (since you dont want to mention how russian SS told Bush that SH was planning to commit multiple terrorist attacks on US interests within and outside of the US.) WMDs... well, US intel, as well as intel from many other countries, including the intel of those who opposed war in Iraq, said that SH has WMDs. Iraq also failed to comply with Resolution 1441, which would authorise the coalition to take offensive action against Iraq; failing to comply with 1441 also incriminates Iraq; logic and common sense would indicate that SH HAD WMDs but did something to them just before the war or he hid them very well.

......why didnt he attack the Saudi's? why didnt he attack where bin Laden was from and hiding????

Well, I'm suprised that you cant figure this one out. It wasnt proven that Saudi Arabia, knowing that 9/11 was gonna happen, financed Al Qaida. Saudi Arabia is a strategic allie which we can not loose at the moment (although having bases in Iraq will undermine how strategicly valuable Saudi Arabia is), and Saudi Arabia owns a considerable portion of the US... and if they withdrew their money, the US economy would really suffer.

1. Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.

Bush never said SH had anything to do with 9/11... but its logical to assume that SH might have had something to do with Al Qaida since the terrorists were in Baghdad *and* Saddam himself was planning terrorist attacks on the US.

2. Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the United States and/or its allies.

Yeah, well, Iraq did illegally possess chemical and biological weapons which WERE a threat to the US and/or its allies... we just dont know if those weapons were still around just before GW2... however intel did believe they were around. If the US didnt invade Iraq, you people would still be wondering if he had WMDs or not... oh and if Iraq did pull off one of the multiple terror attacks on the US, you would be going all over it and saying "See! Bush didnt protect us from IRAQ LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE!!! WHAT A MORON!!! RUSSIAN SS EVEN WARNED HIM!"

I mean... isnt this similar to what you're fighting about with 9/11? People are complaining that Bush didnt stop 9/11 (Kerry didnt either, even after he was directly warned btw) and people are basing that complaint on "Intel agencies from other countries even said that Bin Laden was gonna strike the US"--- but wait, Russian Intel is saying SH was also planning multiple terrorist attacks on the US... yet you dont think Bush should act on that?

3. Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

He was trying to obtain uranium... like I've said earlier up.

4. Occupying Iraq would not only be a “cakewalk,” but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.

Well, lots of people would assume that a large populus of Iraq WOULD welcome the US since they freed them of SH... But the US played it wrong and Al Qaida is there causing problems making the US look like its killing civilians.

5. Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

It still could...

then there is the international criminal court, which the US tried to make itself immune too.

Yep, and I dont agree with that.

so why did the Bush admin want to be exempt???

Maybe he feared that people like you would label him a criminal and want him trialed... which you do.

you are an american afterall.

Im not.

however, as a non american let me tell you, I do NOT like the idea of some country massing weapons for the purpose of their own security

And you propose that countries should disarm in order to protect themselves?

and taking it to the point of inflicting invasion and war upon the rest of the world if they do not meet with their principles,

Thats not happening and you know it. The US is not inflicting invasion and war upon countries just cuz they do not meet with their principles.

OR for some money making scheme.

Again, not proven.

I do NOT agree with america challenging ANYONE who is hostile to their interests.

Even if they are planning terrorist attacks on the US?

Im sorry, but america does not rule the world,

Actually, in terms of military, the US does rule the world... thats what you're against isnt it?

and if some country is doing just fine on their own, but they wont sell america oil....then america has no rght to invade.

Did it ever?

american principles do NOT need to be promoted abroad. there are many cultures and many countries on this planet, most of which who manage fine without being american. We do nto need american global leadership, neither do we need american values pushed onto us.

Yet... certain people believe that they should force their culture upon the americans instead.

[Blood Angel]

Actually, in terms of military, the US does rule the world... thats what you're against isnt it?

Actually you couldn't have been more incorrect. China has a much larger military.

[Stellar]

Actually, in terms of military, the US does rule the world... thats what you're against isnt it?

Actually you couldn't have been more incorrect. China has a much larger military.

It does. But it lacks the quality and transport capacity that the US has. Thats why the US is the worlds superpower. China is just on its way to being considered a true superpower. I think that anyone who claims its a superpower now doesnt really know much about what China has and hasnt in its military. So, infact, YOU couldnt have been more incorrect.

[Blood Angel]

2.5million troops, world largest airforce, a navy comparable to the US, over 2,000 nuclear weapons. And china isn't a world superpower....right.

750,000 troops (including USMC), second largest airforce, first largest navy. over one thousand nukes. If this was top trumps...i would have won by now.

[Stellar]

2.5million troops, world largest airforce, a navy comparable to the US, over 2,000 nuclear weapons. And china isn't a world superpower....right.

750,000 troops (including USMC), second largest airforce, first largest navy. over one thousand nukes. If this was top trumps...i would have won by now.

Please. A navy comparable with that of the US? Maybe in the future, but not yet. THey're only starting to build nuclear submarines.

Largest airforce? What does a large airforce give you if the quality of the airforce is sub par?

2000 nuclear weapons huh? The US only has 1000? Where the HELL are you getting those numbers?

THe US has at the moment 7339 nuclear warheads! China? Not even 1000, although they do keep lots under wraps and might have more but are keeping that info well hidden...

China, ffs, doesnt even have the transport capacity that the US does, so they couldnt even effectively INVADE the US.

[Blood Angel]

A airforce with the latest migs is sub-par? Right.

China, ffs, doesnt even have the transport capacity that the US does, so they couldnt even effectively INVADE the US.

We arenot argueing who could invade who, but who has more military might in way of a superpower. And the US could not effectively invade china either...

Yes they have a navy comparable to the US, maybe if you didn't think of china as a backward nation. There technology, is only what a few years behind the US?

[Stellar]

A airforce with the latest migs is sub-par? Right.

Maybe if it had a few more of those migs it wouldnt be sub par anymore.

We arenot argueing who could invade who, but who has more military might in way of a superpower.

and I was pointing out that China's superior numbers are worth sh** since they cant even transport as much troops as the US, so basically, the US can invade much better than China can.

And the US could not effectively invade china either...

The US COULD invade China, the only problem would be holding china and gaining controle. But it could definitly invade.

Yes they have a navy comparable to the US

Not yet buddy.

There technology, is only what a few years behind the US?

Mostly 1960/1970 era tech. Oh and their army is obese too actually. I take mystats not from my mind like you do, I take them from verified and credible sites like the CIA fact book, and more importantly, sites like FAS.org

[Blood Angel]

The US COULD invade China, the only problem would be holding china and gaining controle. But it could definitly invade.

I would like to see USA troops get 5 yards up the shore without being wh0red by the red guard.

Maybe if it had a few more of those migs it wouldnt be sub par anymore.

Not to be biased or anything, but most of the US airforce could do with a bit of a upgrade right? China has more than enough MiG29s to adquately defend its airspace.

Mostly 1960/1970 era tech. Oh and their army is obese too actually. I take mystats not from my mind like you do, I take them from verified and credible sites like the CIA fact book, and more importantly, sites like FAS.org

They have cruise missile technology, satelite technlogy......and from my mind eh? did you even read the cia fact book (if you read it, you'll see it doesn't actually tell you what they have in there arsenal)?

What i will say, is god help both sides if they do decide to play slaps with each other. In my opinion, any war with them two as opposing enemys, will be a stalemate.

[reese2]

Nightbird-

Ohh No....... !!! What are you doing to me here?? Well I have read everything you posted... I don't know what to say that could be any better than what Stellar wrote.. You do realize that most of what you consider 'proof' is merely subjective judgements on your part, and the parts of any other conspiracy nut.. I am sorry, but I was really hoping that you would have something concrete. I am telling you right now, that I am very open minded and have a knack for looking at things very opnely and honestly. I have to say, if this is the best you have, with no ACTUAL proof, then your case is pretty flimsy.. (Also, even though there is proof of the ties to the Bin Ladin family, it seems a bit blown up on your part and any others' to make connections in a bad way, where there aren't any) I would also have to say that most people that dislike Bush, here, would logically agree with me. This all seems too derisory for a rational person to believe, that is truly looking for something substantive... I am sorry, but the only thing that I can offer you, after reading this all, is a breakdown much like Stellars, disputing all of your so called facts...

Now, I would like to implore you to do what I have done here. Look at Stellars information, looking past the sarcasm of course, with a true and completely OPEN MIND, and tell me and everyone here what you think about all the good points he has brought up. Also, please if possible refute anything you can, with as much 'proof' as possible. I would like you to be as open as you request others' to be. (And, please be honest with yourself, if something seems a bit 'flamey' to you, look at it through clear eyes)

Thanks for your time..

Reese

[Stellar]

I would like to see USA troops get 5 yards up the shore without being wh0red by the red guard.

We're not playing C&C Generals here. Chances are the superior numbers would not be so much more superior after the USAF took out the chinese airforce in the area and began bombing the troops. Sure, the Chinese would attempt to do the same to the US forces invading them, but my moneys on the Chinese being the ones loosing most. But, really, we dont know what would happen. My point was, the US can effectivly conduct a disembarkment onto China, while China can not do the same to the US because of its inferior transport capacity.

Not to be biased or anything, but most of the US airforce could do with a bit of a upgrade right?

Well, the US isnt using F-4 phantoms or anything... but yeah it could use an upgrade, but it is being upgraded... the F/A-22s are replacing the F-15s and the F/A-22 is one hell of a fighter. The US also has JSFs on the way too. Either way, the USAFs has the quality advantage over the Chinese for sure.

China has more than enough MiG29s to adquately defend its airspace.

If the US moved all its carrier task forces, would those MiG-29s still hold? The US has what? 7 or 8 carrier task groups? Each carrier has about what? 80 F/A-18s? Granted, F/A-18s are not the most manuverable planes but they've got the mid range missiles that are needed to take out MiG-29s. The US also has the use of Taiwan and Afghanistan which it could use to send up its (F/A-22s) and F-117s and B-2s and F-15s and F-16s along side of the Navy, so its not like the US couldnt attack with manuverable planes and/or bombers. China would have to deal with 2 fronts at least so it would have to seperate its MiG-29 in that much at least also. MiG-29s also are not that effective on long range intercept/strike missions because of their short range.

They have cruise missile technology, satelite technlogy......

I never said they didnt...

did you even read the cia fact book

Yes and I know it doesnt give me numbers on whats in the Chinese arsenal but I know I used it to check up on their army man power, and dont remember if I got some of my other info from the CIA fact book or another site. Still I mention the CIA factbook cuz I did use it.

What i will say, is god help both sides if they do decide to play slaps with each other. In my opinion, any war with them two as opposing enemys, will be a stalemate.

Agreed. It would be hell. No one would win cuz nukes would definitly be used at some point.

Either way though, China isnt a superpower like the US is at this time.

[Blood Angel]

We're not playing C&C Generals here. Chances are the superior numbers would not be so much more superior after the USAF took out the chinese airforce in the area and began bombing the troops. Sure, the Chinese would attempt to do the same to the US forces invading them, but my moneys on the Chinese being the ones loosing most. But, really, we dont know what would happen. My point was, the US can effectivly conduct a disembarkment onto China, while China can not do the same to the US because of its inferior transport capacity.

Hmm, if you want to look at this from a strategists point of view, then invading via a amphibious choice would be a very bad idea. Yes the US could get to the beach, but getting far from the beach with enough force to carry on the offensive is another thing entirely. If we look at the last proper ampibious landing invasion, it wasn't the most successful attack in history. Secondly, its also a matter of terrain, something which chinese troops have grown up in. Up north its like russia, but down south is where the problems will arise, it would be vietnam all over again.

Well, the US isnt using F-4 phantoms or anything... but yeah it could use an upgrade, but it is being upgraded... the F/A-22s are replacing the F-15s and the F/A-22 is one hell of a fighter. The US also has JSFs on the way too. Either way, the USAFs has the quality advantage over the Chinese for sure.

Granted the F-22 is much better than the MiG29, but i wouldn't underestimate a poor fighter in expert hands.

If the US moved all its carrier task forces, would those MiG-29s still hold? The US has what? 7 or 8 carrier task groups? Each carrier has about what? 80 F/A-18s? Granted, F/A-18s are not the most manuverable planes but they've got the mid range missiles that are needed to take out MiG-29s. The US also has the use of Taiwan and Afghanistan which it could use to send up its (F/A-22s) and F-117s and B-2s and F-15s and F-16s along side of the Navy, so its not like the US couldnt attack with manuverable planes and/or bombers. China would have to deal with 2 fronts at least so it would have to seperate its MiG-29 in that much at least also. MiG-29s also are not that effective on long range intercept/strike missions because of their short range.

You can't bring in taiwan and afgan, without considering chinas potential allies: NKorea, Cambodia, Vietnam... Seeing as Taiwan is a touchly subject, china would probably take that place first. But like i said a poor plane with a master pilot....Your forgetting that china can draw upon its whole air force, and deploy from anywhere in its country. Which i'm afriad to say is alot larger than the US, yes half of it may be old 21s and the like, but they can still shoot.

Either way though, China isnt a superpower like the US is at this time.

Hmm, i'd like to say they were almost equal as any other country that has nukes. China is the new russia some might say.

BTW, i played generals, it was crap.

[Stellar]

Hmm, if you want to look at this from a strategists point of view, then invading via a amphibious choice would be a very bad idea. Yes the US could get to the beach, but getting far from the beach with enough force to carry on the offensive is another thing entirely. If we look at the last proper ampibious landing invasion, it wasn't the most successful attack in history. Secondly, its also a matter of terrain, something which chinese troops have grown up in. Up north its like russia, but down south is where the problems will arise, it would be vietnam all over again

I know. A disembarkment would practically be suicide... but I was talking from the strategic point of view of a disembarkment. But still, if the US could get off the beach, it would still mean that they managed to over power the Chinese which had the superior numbers...

Granted the F-22 is much better than the MiG29, but i wouldn't underestimate a poor fighter in expert hands.

US pilots arent that poor though.

You can't bring in taiwan and afgan, without considering chinas potential allies: NKorea, Cambodia, Vietnam... Seeing as Taiwan is a touchly subject, china would probably take that place first. But like i said a poor plane with a master pilot....Your forgetting that china can draw upon its whole air force, and deploy from anywhere in its country. Which i'm afriad to say is alot larger than the US, yes half of it may be old 21s and the like, but they can still shoot.

I wasnt bringing Taiwan and Afghans military power up, I brang them up because the US would be able to deploy from there, and attack on multiple fronts because of it. Allies like NKorea basically dont mean much since its not a strategic position for China... its only what? a few dozen km away from mainland? It wouldnt make much difference if China deployed from NKorea or somewhere else inside of it.

China can draw upon its whole air force, but it can not attack with all of them together because they would have to split them to protect other parts of the country, while the US has carriers equipped with some 80 aircraft--64 attack planes, *7, which would be 448 attack planes all together with its 7 carrier task groups there. Thats no small deal. The old 21s would be lit up like street lights during the night by 120s... China would have a chance though with its superior numbers. Some planes could break through the missile barriers, but in the end, I'm putting my money on the USAF.

Hmm, i'd like to say they were almost equal as any other country that has nukes. China is the new russia some might say.

The US would obliterate China in a nuclear war. The US has so much more nukes... doesnt the US have the most warheads on the planet?

BTW, i played generals, it was crap.

Generals is ok. Zero Hour is amazing. Now I dled the Blitzkrieg mod which will be AMAZING. A completely new money system that'll make multiplayer much more interesting.