Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17050)	7/20/1998 9:24:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

South China Morning Post Saturday July 18 1998 Proposal for Pentagon elite to train PLA SIMON BECK in New York and Agencies The Pentagon's elite Special Forces soldiers will train PLA troops under a plan being considered by Washington. The possibility was confirmed by Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon after US Special Operations chief General Peter Schoomaker said he hoped to see such links. Although both forces are tentatively developing ties - observing one another's drills - any move towards training with the PLA could prove controversial in Washington. General Schoomaker's command includes the Green Berets and Navy SEALS. Their forces conduct training missions - sometimes covertly - in more than 100 countries. He said the training proposal was "desirable". "You need to engage so you develop rapport and understanding and have another method of dialogue. "What we would encourage is low-level contact at the small-unit level that allows us to . . . develop trust and confidence that then brings in higher level people to the point where you establish the kind of relationship [where] you can have different kinds of dialogue." General Schoomaker did not specify under what conditions such collaboration might take place with China, but he said the head of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Joseph Prueher, had been discussing the subject. Mr Bacon did not rule out such co-operation with the PLA. "In a broad sense we're looking at future military exchanges with China. I'm not aware of any specific look at Special Forces operations, but that certainly would be a type of military exchange we would consider," he said. Mr Bacon said co-operation was already under way in terms of joint observations, with a team of Chinese officers watching the US-led Pacific Rim exercises off Hawaii. He said the US goal was "getting our militaries to work together more smoothly", notably on non-combat missions such as search-and-rescue and provision of humanitarian aid. At the same time, Mr Bacon endorsed a Congress-mandated panel's conclusion that China was a major exporter of ballistic missile technology to Iran, branded by Washington as the world's biggest state sponsor of "terrorism", and other states. "It's true, and it's unfortunate," he said. The panel, chaired by former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, reported that China posed a threat to US national security "as a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction and enabling technologies". Back To Top scmp.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17050)	7/20/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Training China's Red Berets Josaph Farah WorldNet News Daily Monday 07/20/98 The trouble with nailing President Clinton on anything is that as soon as you start closing in on him for one example of high treason or criminal insanity, he is embarking on a dozen head-spinning new ones. The latest scandalous illustration is his Pentagon's plan to have U.S. Special Forces soldiers train China's People's Liberation Army troops. I'm not kidding. Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed for the South China Morning Post the possibility that the Green Berets and Navy SEALS would share their famed fighting secrets with America's most likely military adversary for the foreseeable future. In fact, the U.S. and China have already begun observing each other's military drills. To show you the extent of the politicization of the U.S. military under Clinton, General Peter Shoomaker, Special Operations chief, says he's in favor of the training program. He called it "desirable." "You need to engage so you develop rapport and understanding and have another method of dialogue," he explained. "What we would encourage is low-level contact at the small-unit level that allows us to ... develop trust and confidence that then brings in higher level people to the point where you establish the kind of relationship (where) you can have different kinds of dialogue." Excuse me. Dialogue? Is that what the Special Forces are about? Then let's place them under the direction of Madeline Albright. I thought they were elite fighting forces designed to kill people and break things. Shoomaker said the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Joseph Prueher, has been discussing the Special Forces training idea. "In a broad sense we're looking at future military exchanges with China," said Bacon. "I'm not aware of any specific look at Special Forces operations, but that certainly would be a type of military exchange we would consider." Now, is it any wonder that an administration that would consider permitting its most skilled fighters to teach the tricks of their trade to a potential enemy would also permit elite businesses to share sensitive technology? It all becomes clear, doesn't it? In fact, you have to wonder why the administration is denying that it allowed missile technology to find its way into the hands of the People's Liberation Army. I'm surprised they're not boasting about it. While we're at it, we ought to make sure the Chinese have only the most sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. If there's anything they need to achieve military parity with the U.S., we should hand it over right now. If we don't, the result will be distrust and mutual suspicion -- the kind that will inevitably lead to conflict. If the Clinton administration had deliberately set out to do everything it could to destabilize this world we live in, to strengthen the military capability of the Chinese regime and to weaken America's ability to defend itself, it could not have done a better job at achieving those dubious goals. Once again, the question of motives arises. Stupidity could not possibly explain such monumental treacheries. Money flows in to the Clinton campaign and technology and vital national security secrets flow out. How much can this administration get away with before Americans rise up in anger and demand some accountability? A few months ago, a nuclear physicist in Los Angeles was convicted of providing national defense information to the Chinese and lying about it to U.S. investigators. Peter Lee was sentenced to a $20,000 fine, one year in a halfway house and 3,000 hours of community service. U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter thought he was making an example of Lee. In sentencing him, Hatter said a "message needs to be sent to other scientists who take an oath, like you did, not to reveal our nation's secrets." Message? We used to hang Americans for such offenses. We used to escort them to "Old Sparky." Today it's community service. Is it any wonder the way we're conducting foreign policy and protecting national security at the top? In fact, I'm surprised Lee wasn't appointed to a top-security clearance post in the Clinton White House. A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at ktkz.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17050)	7/20/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, You are really ignorant. Clinton had very little to do with the economic growth of the country. Have you ever heard of Alan Greenspan??? Also. nazis and communists came from the LEFT of the political spectrum which is your area.