I've been saying we shouldn't trust china for years now, and the new reports that China is arming terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq confirm it.
Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.
According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.
The weapons were described as "late-model" arms that have not been seen in the field before and were not left over from Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.
U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.
The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the flow of Iranian arms to Afghanistan is "fairly substantial" and that it is likely taking place with the help of the Iranian government.
Defense officials are upset that Chinese weapons are being used to kill Americans. "Americans are being killed by Chinese-supplied weapons, with the full knowledge and understanding of Beijing where these weapons are going," one official said.
The arms shipments show that the idea that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism is "utter nonsense," the official said.
This collusion between one of our major trading partners and our avowed enemies is the direct result of the left's pathetic weakness in the international arena. The Chinese know that the terrorists can't defeat us, but they don't mind killing Americans (and Iraqis and Afghanis) to drag the conflict out, embarrass America, and weaken us further. If we had projected strength rather than weakness to the world post-9/11 we wouldn't have to face this death by a thousand cuts.
The Chinese depend on our trade to survive, and they wouldn't dare supply our enemies if the Democrats and the far left hadn't completely emasculated America on the world stage. The Chinese know that we won't do a damn thing to them in response to this affront, because the only option the Democrats have left us is to bend over and take it. It's humiliating and ultimately disastrous to America when our enemies don't fear us and our supposed partners line up to stab us in the back.
In terms of domestic politics, this looks a lot like immigration: The left teams up with short-sighted business interests against the conservative base.
The most devastating question is to probe whether this action is "China" at all. Is the PRC actually in control of this or is this an end run around official policy and a sign that the current PRC regime has lost the "mandate of heaven". PRC government officials cannot admit that they this is their policy yet they also cannot admit that their arms factories are not under government control.
The question is whether you want to go down that road and all that it entails. The Bush administration clearly does not. Do you understand why?
Michael...no offense, but this has got to be one of the dumbest things that you've ever written..
how on earth is this the Democrats fault? Who is the President right now? Which President started this war on terror and war in Iraq? Who controlled the House and Senate until a few months ago?
There is a co-dependent relationship between China and the US. China funds our deficits and debt. They do this by selling us their manufactured goods. We need our money that we give the Chinese because Americans spend their money on Chinese goods rather than save it and buy treasury notes. You want the Chinese to have less influence on us, then you need to stop borrowing money..which brings me to the next question. Who created a balanced budget and who did tax cuts and increased spending to further our dependence on debt and thus the Chinese?
TML: I haven't read anything that led me to believe that the ChiComs aren't fully in control of their territory, much less their military production. If you have links to such information, I'd like to read it.
Manish: Firstly, Bush hasn't been nearly aggressive enough in the War on Terror, but yes, he's made a good start of it. However, Democrats have been making surrender noises from the beginning and all our enemies have been betting that when the rubber met the road Bush's "with us or with the terrorists" mantra wouldn't stand. And it hasn't.
MW: Neo-conservatives such as yourself don't have "the book" to throw at anyone anymore on terrorism.
The only group of people whose predictions and proclamations have been wrong about Iraq specifically and counter-terrorism in general has been neo-conservatives. An ideology that considers broad-scale invasions and military action the centerpiece in any counter-terrorism strategy.. and says that those who suggest, instead, that other tools be used as the centerpiece are calling for "surrender".. is foolish, and wrong.
Michael...how do you ultimately solve the issue of our dependence on the Chinese? Thats the real war. Bush isn't going to stop trade with China to then see our economy go to shambles because interest rates shoot through the roof. He needs to lower the deficit and get Americans to fund our own debt. That will relieve our dependence on the Chinese which will then give leverage to tell the Chinese to cut those things out.
Mark: Absurd. The left doesn't advocate the use of "other tools", they deny that there even is a Global War on Terror.
Manish: That's a good question. I don't like the term "dependence", but rather "interdependence" because they need us even more than we need them. We should pull those economic strings to pressure them into peaceful coexistence (Iran similarly). If they won't act peacefully, then yes, more direct confrontation will be very expensive -- but necessary.
MW: *That* is what's absurd. The talk on the Democratic side of the aisle is about combating terrorism with international cooperation, good police and detective work, and all of the other means at our disposal.
Mark: John Edwards, the leftest of the left, said during the Democrat's debate that the "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker, and everyone applauded.