Chink-mobiles coming to america

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article
.com>,
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
> > themselves.
> >> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
> > spread
> >> > fault equally.
> >>
> >> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
> > transfered
> >> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?
> >
> > Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence
that
> > CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
> > more classified info than was released.
>
> Under his watch the rules regarding what can be sold were changed to
> allow much of it. Some was illegal, the vast majority was legal
and/or
> approved.

And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is unrelated
to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.

> First match of a google search. 5 axis milling machines approved for
sale
> to china for civilian use were of course used by the chinese military

> instead.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti.../6/93304.shtml...

You're correct; I would not highly value Newsmax as a source.

> And just in case one would attack the source, here's CNN:
> http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1...hina.missiles/
>
> "Peter Leitner, an adviser to the Defense Technology Security
> Administration for the past 12 years, has told Senate investigators
that
> the administration has allowed "shortsighted business interests" to
> override national security concerns, according to material obtained
by
> the Associated Press."

One man's opinion.

> >> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> >> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the
multiple
> >> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan
administration;
>
> >> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!
>
> > Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
> > targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as
having
> > occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan,
but
> > I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
> > 10-year-ago crime might have occurred.
>
> Here you go again, keep in narrowly focused and anti-republican only.

> The nuke part is only HALF of it. The other half is getting the nuke
to
> the target.

I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing, and it
isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other things,
then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post claimed
Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites show
this isn't the case.

In article .com>, wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

> And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is unrelated
> to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.

It's *making it legal* where the clinton admin is at fault. The quest to
satisify the greed of contributors, etc. I did not criticize your post,
I added to it. The fact that you consider me adding that both parties are
guilty as being critical of it combined with your pushing aside the fact
that considerable amounts of technology were allowed to be sold to china
in the clinton years tells me where you stand.

> One man's opinion.

Do some reading on it yourself then. Just look at _what_ was allowed to
be sold. Then you decide if it was acceptable once learning how china
used it. Only someone who believes that having other nations with the
ability to threaten the USA and it's cities is good thing would like this
unless he profits from it.

> I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing,

OP? this was a thread on chinese cars!! not nuclear secrets. The OP
stated nothing of the sort.

> and it
> isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other things,
> then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post claimed
> Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites show
> this isn't the case.

I never made that claim! Read my posts, lot's of military and so usable
technology went to china under clinton. That's all I ever claimed. And
your own continued responses to the technology that did leave indicates
to me that it's yet another 'only the other side' does that view.

And to me, the technology to make a multiwarhead ICBM and have it hit the
target is just as big a secret as how to build the nuke itself. And as I
read the thread, it was on secrets, or at least limiting technology xfer.

In article .com>, wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

> And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is unrelated
> to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.

It's *making it legal* where the clinton admin is at fault. The quest to
satisify the greed of contributors, etc. I did not criticize your post,
I added to it. The fact that you consider me adding that both parties are
guilty as being critical of it combined with your pushing aside the fact
that considerable amounts of technology were allowed to be sold to china
in the clinton years tells me where you stand.

> One man's opinion.

Do some reading on it yourself then. Just look at _what_ was allowed to
be sold. Then you decide if it was acceptable once learning how china
used it. Only someone who believes that having other nations with the
ability to threaten the USA and it's cities is good thing would like this
unless he profits from it.

> I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing,

OP? this was a thread on chinese cars!! not nuclear secrets. The OP
stated nothing of the sort.

> and it
> isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other things,
> then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post claimed
> Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites show
> this isn't the case.

I never made that claim! Read my posts, lot's of military and so usable
technology went to china under clinton. That's all I ever claimed. And
your own continued responses to the technology that did leave indicates
to me that it's yet another 'only the other side' does that view.

And to me, the technology to make a multiwarhead ICBM and have it hit the
target is just as big a secret as how to build the nuke itself. And as I
read the thread, it was on secrets, or at least limiting technology xfer.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
>
> > And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is
unrelated
> > to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.
>
> It's *making it legal* where the clinton admin is at fault. The quest
to
> satisify the greed of contributors, etc.

Since Congress, with the backing of private industry, thought it was a
good idea to legalize this along with Clinton, the use of the
pejorative term "fault" is questionable, although not illegitimate if
you choose to make such an argument. But what it is *not* is illegal,
quite a difference from the espionage and thievery that is alleged to
have taken place in the 80s at Los Alamos. They are not comparable
things. One could argue against the Clinton policy but it was open and
above board and widely supported by Republican business interests, and
freely done. Which of these were big contributors to Clinton,
incidentally? Generally, these big contractors make much larger
donations to Republican candidates.

> I did not criticize your post,
> I added to it.

Then you faulted me based on your addition, which I never stated.

> The fact that you consider me adding that both parties are
> guilty as being critical of it combined with your pushing aside the
fact
> that considerable amounts of technology were allowed to be sold to
china
> in the clinton years tells me where you stand.

Or perhaps it speaks to the fact that the two situations -- the
espionage that occurred when Reagen was president and the sales that
took place in the 90s -- are not on the same plane, and my noting of
that is recognition of that reality.

> > I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing,
>
> OP? this was a thread on chinese cars!! not nuclear secrets. The OP
> stated nothing of the sort.

The OP to whom I was referring was not the OP who started the thread,
but the person who made the post that was the subject of my original
reply. I never replied to the originator of this thread. Sorry to
confuse you over that.

> > and it
> > isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other
things,
> > then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post
claimed
> > Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites
show
> > this isn't the case.
>
> I never made that claim! Read my posts....

And I didn't say *you* made the claim. You responded to my reply to the
person who *did* make that claim, and that's what I am discussing. And
your cites did support my contention that what the other person posted
was not the case.

> lot's of military and so usable
> technology went to china under clinton. That's all I ever claimed.
And
> your own continued responses to the technology that did leave
indicates
> to me that it's yet another 'only the other side' does that view.

Not at all. I am drawing distinctions between the Reagan-era espionage
versus the open policies approved by both Clinton and Congress. You are
trying to equate the two. I'm not saying the policies are unassailable,
just that they are not "secret" or espionage or thievery or the like.
They might be stupid policies, but not equatable to the security lapses
under Reagan. Remember, the OP (well, the guy to whom I replied) said
Clinton had sold our nuclear secrets to the Chinese. Nope. If they got
them, they stole them at Los Alamos when Reagan was prez. Private
industry in the 90s, after policy changes adopted by the Clinton admin
and Congress, sold items to the Chinese. There may well be questionable
aspects to this, but it isn't the same as saying Clinton sold nuclear
secrets.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
>
> > And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is
unrelated
> > to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.
>
> It's *making it legal* where the clinton admin is at fault. The quest
to
> satisify the greed of contributors, etc.

Since Congress, with the backing of private industry, thought it was a
good idea to legalize this along with Clinton, the use of the
pejorative term "fault" is questionable, although not illegitimate if
you choose to make such an argument. But what it is *not* is illegal,
quite a difference from the espionage and thievery that is alleged to
have taken place in the 80s at Los Alamos. They are not comparable
things. One could argue against the Clinton policy but it was open and
above board and widely supported by Republican business interests, and
freely done. Which of these were big contributors to Clinton,
incidentally? Generally, these big contractors make much larger
donations to Republican candidates.

> I did not criticize your post,
> I added to it.

Then you faulted me based on your addition, which I never stated.

> The fact that you consider me adding that both parties are
> guilty as being critical of it combined with your pushing aside the
fact
> that considerable amounts of technology were allowed to be sold to
china
> in the clinton years tells me where you stand.

Or perhaps it speaks to the fact that the two situations -- the
espionage that occurred when Reagen was president and the sales that
took place in the 90s -- are not on the same plane, and my noting of
that is recognition of that reality.

> > I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing,
>
> OP? this was a thread on chinese cars!! not nuclear secrets. The OP
> stated nothing of the sort.

The OP to whom I was referring was not the OP who started the thread,
but the person who made the post that was the subject of my original
reply. I never replied to the originator of this thread. Sorry to
confuse you over that.

> > and it
> > isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other
things,
> > then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post
claimed
> > Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites
show
> > this isn't the case.
>
> I never made that claim! Read my posts....

And I didn't say *you* made the claim. You responded to my reply to the
person who *did* make that claim, and that's what I am discussing. And
your cites did support my contention that what the other person posted
was not the case.

> lot's of military and so usable
> technology went to china under clinton. That's all I ever claimed.
And
> your own continued responses to the technology that did leave
indicates
> to me that it's yet another 'only the other side' does that view.

Not at all. I am drawing distinctions between the Reagan-era espionage
versus the open policies approved by both Clinton and Congress. You are
trying to equate the two. I'm not saying the policies are unassailable,
just that they are not "secret" or espionage or thievery or the like.
They might be stupid policies, but not equatable to the security lapses
under Reagan. Remember, the OP (well, the guy to whom I replied) said
Clinton had sold our nuclear secrets to the Chinese. Nope. If they got
them, they stole them at Los Alamos when Reagan was prez. Private
industry in the 90s, after policy changes adopted by the Clinton admin
and Congress, sold items to the Chinese. There may well be questionable
aspects to this, but it isn't the same as saying Clinton sold nuclear
secrets.