Analysts missed Chinese buildup

[Clint]

Analysts missed Chinese buildup

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington Times has learned.

More:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050 ... -4092r.htm

Why whould China build up its military. Who are they preparing to do war with? Why now?

I think the proper response to this is to figure out who is to blame. Once we have played our American blame game we will have forgotten what started it. When we have figured out which President or CIA Director to blame, we will be able to continue consuming cheap Chinese goods without giving it a thought. :driving: :guitarist

[gmc]

posted by clint

Why whould China build up its military. Who are they preparing to do war with? Why now?


You could ask the same question of the US, now that Russia has fragmented why does the US continue to spend so much on arms.

After seeing how devastating western arms were against Iraq China probably rethought it's armament strategy. As well as Russia on it's doorstep there they also have Pakistan and India, both of whom are now nuclear powers and quite likely to go to war against each other like they have in the past-Pakistan is hardly the most stable neighbour to have, they have been at war with both india and pakistan in the past. The US has adopted an increasingly aggressive stance in it's attitude to it's own interests and declared itself ready to go to war pre-emptively if it deems it in it's interests to do so. Taiwan is still an issue, there are issues with Japan over oil in the seas around those islands whose name I can't remember. Oil prices are going up because of China's demand for oil as it's economy grows, that is hardly likely to get less. What would you do if you were China, hope everybody will be nice or make ready for war just in case somebody tries to bully you?

[Tombstone]

Clint wrote: Analysts missed Chinese buildup

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that


I am interested in why this story was leaked. My bet is that it is dis-information.

Why? Because my source told me that they knew about these weapons systems all along. Someone is trying to pull the wool over someone else's eyes.

But why?

[Clint]

Tombstone wrote: I am interested in why this story was leaked. My bet is that it is dis-information.

Why? Because my source told me that they knew about these weapons systems all along. Someone is trying to pull the wool over someone else's eyes.

But why?
You may be right. Much of what hits the news regarding weapons and intelligence is disinformation. I remember what the President said right after 9-11. He said that this would be a war where people shouldn’t listen so much to what they hear but rather observe what is happening.

I see the things gmc pointed out as evidence that makes a build up seem plausible. Pointing a finger at the U.S. misses the target though. I don't think we are any less a pawn than any other nation at this point.

Taiwan and our commitment to her alone might be reason to them for a build up. On the other hand, as you point out, the reason this was leaked could be very sinister.

Suppose the motives of those in control are imperialistic and those people who are in real power see a need to increase the size of the U.S, military for their purposes. A story of a China who is a growing threat would go a long way in an effort to get support for increasing weapons spending.

Things have become so bizarre geopolitically that it is impossible to know. I read with interest and disbelief while observing with skepticism. :sneaky:

[gmc]

http://www.chinanewsagency.com/

Some different perspectives for you.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/ ... 22,00.html?

Dangerous for US to see China as adversary: SM Goh

He says there 'need not be any fundamental conflict between the two countries'


http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/ ... 22,00.html?

Kissinger: Conflict with China not an option

By Henry A. Kissinger (iht.com)

Updated: 2005-06-10 08:58


posted by clint

Suppose the motives of those in control are imperialistic and those people who are in real power see a need to increase the size of the U.S, military for their purposes. A story of a China who is a growing threat would go a long way in an effort to get support for increasing weapons spending.

Things have become so bizarre geopolitically that it is impossible to know. I read with interest and disbelief while observing with skepticism.


Ah conspiracy theories don't you just love them, industry and empire.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Kind of like the statement about "Iraq having weapons of mass distruction." G.W. Bush....



And they've yet to find any.
Suppose the police have been observing a house where they are certain they are producing child pornography. To date they haven’t been able to prove it but in the meantime lives are being ruined. A neighbor complains that they are bothered by strange odors coming from the house. Someone who lives in the house buys all the cold medicine in stock at the local pharmacy. Known meth users are seen coming and going from the house. Let’s assume they collect enough evidence to enter the house because of the probability they are producing meth. They raid the house only to find they are pasting the cold medicine to a large piece of cardboard in attempt to create art. There are meth users in the house but they are there to abuse children. Should they have used force to enter the house?

George Bush thought he had probable cause based of the evidence presented him. He thought a dangerous, murderous leader who raped and murdered his own people also had weapons of mass destruction. When he sent in the troops he found they had taken down a criminal but not for the stated reason. Does that mean force shouldn’t have been used to take him down? I think that if WMD hadn’t been suspected we would have gone in anyway because Saddam needed to be removed from power and the bad guys we’ve been fighting since needed to be dealt with. Isn’t it better done on their soil, with the people who have been supporting the bad guys absorbing the impact, than to have the fight on our soil?

This probably doesn't belong in this tread. I'm going to start a thread with it because I would like to read other opinions.

[capt_buzzard]

And I posted something like this awhile back and Nobody listened or Believed. Oh you men of little faith.:-2

[Clint]

capt_buzzard wrote: And I posted something like this awhile back and Nobody listened or Believed. Oh you men of little faith.:-2
Or: Oh ye men of great and unreasonable anger.