US IGNORANCE Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance

blackascoal said:
WOW .. you've just validated that I've stomped the hell out of you intellectually .. and you're too stupid to even recognize that.

You've degraded yourself to the point of talking about how another man's anus feels and you think that is an insult to me.

An absolutely incredible display of self-degradation and a lack of manlihood.

WOW
Click to expand...
I agree entirely. But there are a few of those degenerates on this board. (and they know who they are.)
 
doniston said:
What a stupid lying remark. Course if you don't know any better, it is just your error. ---which is it.
Click to expand...

What do you care? Is he your lover? He seems to think criticizing china is "china-bashing" (so like a neocon) and refuses to say if he agrees with the anti-globalist democrat. I surmise he's a globalist, in absence of an actual answer confirming his position.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Hey punk, do you agree with Dorgan?
Click to expand...
like me, he likley doesn't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. How many times are you going to ask that before you get the idea you aren';t going to get an answer.

Tell me. do you still beat your wife?
 
doniston said:
like me, he likley doesn't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. How many times are you going to ask that before you get the idea you aren';t going to get an answer.

Tell me. do you still beat your wife?
Click to expand...
No. Byron Dorgan is his example of an anti-globalization democrat. You just don't know what I'm talking about because you're too lazy to read the thread, and evidently feeling like spouting off in an uninformed fashion.

He won't answer because he doesn't agree with dorgan, is a globalist, and thinks anti globalism is "china-bashing". Or he can claim otherwise. As it is, he's punked out like a bitch.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. Byron Dorgan is his example of an anti-globalization democrat. You just don't know what I'm talking about because you're too lazy to read the thread, and evidently feeling like spouting off in an uninformed fashion.

He won't answer because he doesn't agree with dorgan, is a globalist, and thinks anti globalism is "china-bashing". Or he can claim otherwise. As it is, he's punked out like a bitch.
Click to expand...

Same question: Do you still beat your wife?

As for the subject, It is not whether I understand the issue or not, I personally am not interested. so why should I read your garbage??
 
doniston said:
Same question: Do you still beat your wife?

As for the subject, It is not whether I understand the issue or not, I personally am not interested. so why should I read your garbage??
Click to expand...

This is not the same as the "do you still beat your wife?" question. It's a regular question. Catch-22 questions exist; mine is not one.

If you read the thread, you won't look like an idiot.
 
AssHatZombie said:
This is not the same as the "do you still beat your wife?" question. It's a regular question. Catch-22 questions exist; mine is not one.

If you read the thread, you won't look like an idiot.
Click to expand...
If you stop asking the same question, "YOU "won't look like one. By the way, I read the thread untill you started asking the same asinine question, and the subject changed. It is no longer related to the initial title.
 
doniston said:
If you stop asking the same question, "YOU "won't look like one. By the way, I read the thread untill you started asking the same asinine question, and the subject changed. It is no longer related to the initial title.
Click to expand...


Of course it is. globalization is intimately tied to global geopolitics. Asserting otherwise is assinine.
 
doniston said:
Same question: Do you still beat your wife?

As for the subject, It is not whether I understand the issue or not, I personally am not interested. so why should I read your garbage??
Click to expand...

This politically illiterate idiot claimed there were no anti-globalist democrats or republicans who voted for the war. How idiotic a claim is that? Once I demonstrated that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, now he wants to know if I agree with Dorgan .. whom, before I schooled him, had no knowledge of his politics.

This thread is about a Russian/Chinese military alliance, not globalization, which he also doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

He not intelligent enough to engage in mature civil debate and like an 8th grader whose mother isn't home, he thinks using bad language makes him a man. He has the mannerisms symbolic of a failed life. Come to a message board and scream at everybody because life is so fucking miserable for him.

Find himself an avatar of percieved machoism to mask his homo-erotic yearnings for the "warmness" of other men's asses.

No desire to engage in his childplay or tickle his perverted sexual fantasy.
 
blackascoal said:
This politically illiterate idiot claimed there were no anti-globalist democrats or republicans who voted for the war. How idiotic a claim is that? Once I demonstrated that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, now he wants to know if I agree with Dorgan .. whom, before I schooled him, had no knowledge of his politics.

This thread is about a Russian/Chinese military alliance, not globalization, which he also doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

He not intelligent enough to engage in mature civil debate and like an 8th grader whose mother isn't home, he thinks using bad language makes him a man. He has the mannerisms symbolic of a failed life. Come to a message board and scream at everybody because life is so fucking miserable for him.

Find himself an avatar of percieved machoism to mask his homo-erotic yearnings for the "warmness" of other men's asses.

No desire to engage in his childplay or tickle his perverted sexual fantasy.
Click to expand...

And globalization is exactly why china is so strong. This is an undeniably relevant point.

Do you agree with Byron Dorgan?
 
AssHatZombie said:
And globalization is exactly why china is so strong. This is an undeniably relevant point.

Do you agree with Byron Dorgan?
Click to expand...

No, I do not .. and globalization is not why China is strong. China virtually owns the US debt. Did they put a gun to our head and force us to spend money like drunken sailors? Did China force us to mortgage our future for destructive cowboy misadventures?
 
blackascoal said:
No, I do not .. and globalization is not why China is strong. China virtually owns the US debt. Did they put a gun to our head and force us to spend money like drunken sailors? Did China force us to mortgage our future for destructive cowboy misadventures?
Click to expand...

Yes. The billions and billions of trade dollars ARE why china is strong. We are stupid on other dimensions, that doesn't mean globalization is a good idea, or that it doesn't aid china in their military goals. Your position is mentally bankrupt. I'm sorry that there are other lessons and issues here besides "America is doomed".
 
US ELITE COMPLICITY facilitates a strong and adversarial China, which is, in turn, emboldening an already bitter Russia.
 
Those who think the the cultural differences between China and Russia will prevent them from forging any long term alliances should think again. This isn't the first time they've held such excersises and their alliance has been building and getting stronger since the cowboys rode into Washington.

The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran
JUNE 4, 2005
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.

Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.

The joint military exercises complement a rapidly growing arms trade between Moscow and Beijing. China is Russia's largest buyer of military equipment. In 2004, China was reported to have signed deals worth more than $2 billion for Russian arms. These included naval ships and submarines, missile systems and aircraft. According to the head of Russia's armed forces, Anatoliy Kvashnin, "our defense industrial complex is working for this country [China], supplying the latest models of arms and military equipment, which the Russian army does not have". Russia's relations with China are not limited to military trade. In the past five years, non-military trade between Russia and China has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20%. Moscow and Beijing have targeted non-military trade to reach $60 billion by 2010, from $20 billion in 2004. One of the key components of commercial trade is Russian energy exports to China.

---

At the end of 2004, Russian officials announced that rather than running into China, the new mega pipeline would terminate in Russia's Pacific port of Nakhodka. Japan lobbied Moscow hard for this configuration, offering to finance the entire construction project, the cost of which is estimated to exceed $10 billion. In addition to a readily available financing source, the Nakhodka pipeline will remain entirely in Russian territory, allowing Moscow complete control over the oil flow.

Many analysts viewed Moscow's decision as a blow to relations with China. Though the pipeline does not terminate in China, it does pass within 40 miles of Russia's border with China. A spur from this pipeline to China would be inexpensive, while further diversifying the market for annual oil flows expected to reach 80 million tons. In other words, why should either Moscow or Beijing finance an eastern oil pipeline when Tokyo is bending over backwards to provide such financing?

Yuganskneftegaz, located in Siberia, is Russia's second-largest oil producer.

Through somewhat twisted means, Russia's state-owned oil company, Rosneft, acquired Yuganskneftegaz for $9.3 billion. In December 2004, Russia's Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko offered the CNPC (Chinese National Petroleum Corporation) a 20% stake in Yuganskneftegaz. In February 2005, Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin revealed that Chinese banks provided $6 billion in financing for Rosneft's acquisition of Yuganskneftegaz. This financing was secured by long-term oil delivery contracts between Rosneft and the CNPC.

China's involvement in the renationalization of Yukos represents the most significant foreign participation in Russia's highly guarded oil sector. The CNPC is also involved in several joint ventures with Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom. These include ventures to develop energy reserves in Iran, the home of China's largest energy-related investments.

In March 2004, China's state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran. This was followed by a much larger deal between another of China's state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran, signed in October 2004. This deal, worth about $100 billion, allows China to import a further 250 million tons of LNG from Iran's Yadavaran oilfield over a 25-year period. In addition to LNG, the Yadavaran deal provides China with 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil over the same period.

This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in Iranian energy exploration, drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward Iran's energy sector could exceed a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China became Iran's top oil export market. Apart from the oil and natural gas delivery contracts, the massive investment being undertaken by China's state-owned oil companies in Iran's energy sector contravenes the US Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This law penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in either Libya or Iran.

Side-stepping US laws is nothing new for China. Beijing, as well as Moscow, has supplied Tehran with advanced missiles and missile technology since the mid-1980s. In addition to anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm, China has sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, along with Russia, assisted in the development of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. This assistance included the development of Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. Iran is also reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching 3,000 kilometers.

The new geostrategic alliance

Along with energy trade, investment and economic development, the China-Iran-Russia alliance has cultivated compatible foreign policies. China, Iran and Russia have identical foreign policy positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya. China and Iran fully support the Putin government's war against the Chechen separatists (Iran's self-described status as an "Islamic republic" notwithstanding). Russia and Iran support Beijing's one-China policy. The recent promulgation of China's anti-secession law, aimed at making Beijing's intolerance of Taiwanese independence explicit, was heartily commended in both Moscow and Tehran.

The most compelling aspect of this alliance is revealed in China's and Russia's support for Iran's much-maligned nuclear energy program. The Putin government has consistently maintained that Russia would not support UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Iran's nuclear energy program or apply economic sanctions against Iran.

The endorsement of Tehran's nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis - to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival.

"The US case in Iraq has caused the Muslim world and Arab countries to believe that the superpower already regards them as targets [for] its ambitious democratic reform program."

To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.
Click to expand...


This was from 2005 and the Russia, Chinese, Iran alliance has only gotten stronger .. and it's an alliance that is appealing for other nations to join. Now even Japan is beholding to this alliance and it's most certainly attractive to the entire muslim world. If the US goes into Pakistan, expect Musharraf to be assassinated and Pakistan to join this alliance.

Russia would not be selling billions of dollars in weapons to China if it feared it.
 
blackascoal said:
This politically illiterate idiot claimed there were no anti-globalist democrats or republicans who voted for the war. How idiotic a claim is that? Once I demonstrated that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, now he wants to know if I agree with Dorgan .. whom, before I schooled him, had no knowledge of his politics.

This thread is about a Russian/Chinese military alliance, not globalization, which he also doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

He not intelligent enough to engage in mature civil debate and like an 8th grader whose mother isn't home, he thinks using bad language makes him a man. He has the mannerisms symbolic of a failed life. Come to a message board and scream at everybody because life is so fucking miserable for him.

Find himself an avatar of percieved machoism to mask his homo-erotic yearnings for the "warmness" of other men's asses.

No desire to engage in his childplay or tickle his perverted sexual fantasy.
Click to expand...
I agree and I told him so but he continues to beleive that black is white, or vice[versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top