SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (108071)7/26/2003 1:18:07 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
You did make the charge and I've copied it below.

<<<<<<
Message 19139754
To:Brumar89 who wrote (107571)
From: GST
Wednesday, Jul 23, 2003  8:10 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 108097
The motive was to send a signal to China not to play any role in the conflict. It was not an accident. I have multiple sources on the US side and I know for a fact that the Chinese did not think it was an accident because I had the "pleasure" of discussing it with them.

Message 19137751
To:moenmac who wrote (107409)
From: GST
Wednesday, Jul 23, 2003  12:47 PM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 108097
We intentionally bombed the Chinese embassy -- I think is was the wrong thing to do, but it was no accident. I give credit to China for showing maturity on that issue and not triggering a bigger, uglier and more long-lived response. Can you imagine what we would do if China bombed one of our embassies?

Message 19138164
To:moenmac who wrote (107449)
From: GST
Wednesday, Jul 23, 2003  2:07 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 108097
An American embassy is American soil. To intentionally bomb an embassy is to intentionally attack a country on its own soil. That is what we did to China. The Chinese took it in stride, although it leaves a very negative impression. If China intentionally bombed us on our own soil, the feelings and attitudes of hostility that would be unleashed towards China would last a lifetime. It would be reflected in all of our policy decisions and the hawks would call for war every day of the week.
>>>>>>

Now you say:
<<<<
I did not make a charge, I told you what is widely believed and was thoroughly discussed. It certainly does not revolve around me personally -- my knowledge is specific only to the Chinese reaction because I was there and played a minor role in communications.
>>>>>>

I've found out something. You can't be believed. You misrepresented your personal opinion as an objective fact that you hinted you had personal knowledge of.

Re. the Niger forgery, yeah, I'd be interested in knowing where they come from. I suspect French intelligence. Doesn't matter a great deal because this issue isn't very important. The Niger memo didn't cause us to go to war. And it wasn't even the basis of that one sentence in Bush's speech.