yea right, there going to give up billions in there trade with the USA - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

TN-W124 Diesel · #1 07-15-2005, 11:46 AM

yea right, we would stop shopping at Walmart

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

china us troubleChina is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing

GottaDiesel · #2 07-15-2005, 11:50 AM

Hehe,

We pissed off the Arab world, and now we're going to piss off one of the few countries that could strangle us economically (easily), and in war.

Huh, Remind me what a bastard Clinton was again. Yeah, Right.

boneheaddoctor · #3 07-15-2005, 11:59 AM

And remember students....China is the People Clintons cronies gave the MRV wardhead info to....Something I raised hell over back then.....

Funny but Chinas comments don't surprise me.....they have been this way since Mao and his flunkies took over.

mikemover · #4 07-15-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Hehe,

We pissed off the Arab world, and now we're going to piss off one of the few countries that could strangle us economically (easily), and in war.

Huh, Remind me what a bastard Clinton was again. Yeah, Right.

WE pissed of the Arab world?!?!! What alternate universe are YOU living in?!

They have been pissed of at EVERYONE, including each other, for CENTURIES.

Mike

GottaDiesel · #5 07-15-2005, 12:17 PM

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

mikemover · #6 07-15-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

Well, of course! The French roll over and try to appease EVERYONE, and France AND Germany, along with Russia, had bigger oil contracts with Saddam than ANYONE!

There have terrorist attacks in Spain, Bali, Australia....All carried out by Muslim extremists, 99.9% of which are Arab.

The time for diplomacy has LONG since passed. My gripe with George W. is not that he has attacked our enemies in the Middle East. My gripe is that he has not gone ALL-OUT and removed them from the face of this planet.

Any more questions?....

Mike

GottaDiesel · #7 07-15-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Well, of course!

Glad you got it.

boneheaddoctor · #8 07-15-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs. Oh, and post some facts.

Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So that leave less work for you.

Give me a break. If Shrub was a good as looking like a donkey as he was diplomacy, we'd be on top of the game.

So please, stop.

THey haven't learned the lessons of Neville Chaimberland like we and the UK have.

Botnst · #9 07-16-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Name 1 country in the G-8 (Blair aside, since he fell in love with Bush) that is hated by the Arabs.
Italy, NO.
France, NO.
Germany, NO.
USA, Duh.
Blair, Duh.

So please, stop.

All of them. Bin Laden said that the western democracies are the enemies of Islam because of our secularism and self-indulgence and contempt for Allah. He has often said that his ultimate goal is to do as Allah commanded through Muhammed, bring the sword of Islam to the world. Read the history of Islam, that is the Islam to which Bin laden holds allegience. Not the modern, comfy version that we all nervously hope is a "peaceloving religion."

Wahabbism is all about introducing Sharia world-wide. That is why the Saudis have underwritten mosques with their brand of preachers (Wahabbists) world-wide. Do not take my word for it. Read about it online or in the 9/11 book. It's all there.

We (non-Muslims) are legimate targets of conquest by true believers.

mikemover · #10 07-16-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

All of them. Bin Laden said that the western democracies are the enemies of Islam because of our secularism and self-indulgence and contempt for Allah. He has often said that his ultimate goal is to do as Allah commanded through Muhammed, bring the sword of Islam to the world. Read the history of Islam, that is the Islam to which Bin laden holds allegience. Not the modern, comfy version that we all nervously hope is a "peaceloving religion."

Wahabbism is all about introducing Sharia world-wide. That is why the Saudis have underwritten mosques with their brand of preachers (Wahabbists) world-wide. Do not take my word for it. Read about it online or in the 9/11 book. It's all there.

We (non-Muslims) are legimate targets of conquest by true believers.

Once again: Yep.

Mike

mikemover · #11 07-15-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Whaaa? How can you read what that General said, and twist it into some sort of blame on the US???

EVERYTHING is our fault.... We're the bad guys. Didn't you get the memo?

Mike

mzsmbs · #12 07-15-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Yeah, negativity has seem to become a popular hobby. They say it leads to sarcasm.

and banning in these here parts...

GottaDiesel · #13 07-15-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narwhal

Whaaa? How can you read what that General said, and twist it into some sort of blame on the US???

Because we need to keep our hands out of other's people business and start minding our OWN store. Christ, we can't even successfully smash big rocks into smaller ones in Afganistan. Let alone turn around Iraq. Now all of a sudden we're going to do battle with a country that FAR out industrializes us, and population wise... we lose there too.

We're only a super-power because of two things. And in THIS order:

a) We think we are and people (some, few) still think we are.
b) We have nukes.

Aside from that, it is a very different military compared to WW2.

And don't waste your time with Nam or Korea... we lost. YES, we LOST those. So get over it. And so far we haven't won Iraq. Nor will we.

Now you think we can go head to head with China. Yeah. Right. Only if we nuke them before they nuke us, and then we're really screwed. You just aren't going to win. (Don't get me wrong, they won't win either.)

With massive nuke powers there is NO winning. Everyone is screwed. It only worked when a few guys had the nukes and controlled all the non-nuke nations. Now, everyone and their mommy has a nuke, so it doesn't mean a thing.

Take my word for it, pissing off China is a very very fool-hardy thing for us to do.

We need to sweep up in Iraq, make our OWN country strong, and defend her. No more of this crap where we want to be the world-police.

You can't police the world when all the players have nukes.

That's it.

GottaDiesel · #14 07-15-2005, 12:39 PM

Here's some good reading, it's long... and loaded with facts, and works cited...

The folks that take this topic serious will note it worthy of the time needed to read.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/0046.htm

raymr · #15 07-15-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Here's some good reading, it's long... and loaded with facts, and works cited...

The folks that take this topic serious will note it worthy of the time needed to read.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/0046.htm

Good info. One has to wonder if China is building up militarily to protect its real estate, or to acquire more. More people need more land. Do they still have the 'one child' policy to deal with their over-population problem?