From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Chinascam
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:21:06 GMT

In <1992Oct9.154700.22089@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.135002.1486@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <RBH6RB3w165w@korova.uucp> popec@korova.uucp (Mr. Charlie) writes:

>>>Some years back, a CIA analyst was tracking missles being shipped from 
>>>China to Iran.  This was the tip of an Iceberg.  China was selling 
>>>Missles, Nuclear Waeopn Technology nad Biochem Technology to Iran, a 
>...

>>I'm sorry, but this just doesn't quite seem to track the reality that
>>I remember.  I was certainly aware of Chinese missile technology being
>>sold to Iran some time ago.  I even remember pictures in the paper
>>showing where Silkworm (a Chinese anti-ship missile) batteries were
>>located in Iran.  In point of fact, I have a computer game (the first
>>release of F-19) that shows Chinese missiles as targets in the Iranian
>>theater. 

>>Given all that, some kind of 'coverup' is just real hard to buy.

>Confucious might humbly suggest that Silkworm anti-ship missiles are
>quite dissimilar to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
>technology.

Well, Confucious might want to consider responding with his head
rather than a jerking knee, then.  The Silkworm represents IRBM
technology, and one of the things you were decrying was this 'secret'
sale of missiles.  You might also care to consider just what is meant
by "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons technology".  For
example, does Iran have any nuclear POWER reactors?  Congratulations,
any help with them represents the transfer of nuclear weapons
technology.  And seriously, since China HAS nuclear weapons, if they
were interested in Iran having such things they could simply give them
some.  Chemical weapons technology?  Any kind of chemical or
pharaceutical industry is 'chemical weapons technology'.  And finally,
any kind of health or medical research facility is perfectly capable
of 'biological warfare research', and hence you have that, too.  BFD.

>>>In August, the Chinese government started to move large numbers of 
>>>chinese settlers into Tibet.  100,00 to start, with 700,000 to follow.
>>>Little or no response from Bush who still wants to give most favored 
>>>trading status to China.

>>The Chinese have been doing this in Tibet since Mao took over and
>>claimed Tibet back in the 1950's.  So what is new?

>Confucious might also humbly suggest that a past history of offenses,
>whatever they may be, does not justify acceptance of those offense if
>they are repeated anew.

Well, then, I would suggest that Confucious might want to consider the
hypocrisy of suddenly complaining about something that has been
ongoing since the 1950's as if it is suddenly some new discovery.

>>>Last month, an official Amnesty International report dealt with the 
>>>Torture and illegal detetion of Tibetians, and the mistreatment of the 
>>>Tibetian people by their Chinese masters.  Not a peep from Bush on this.
>>> He stillwants to give most favored trading status to China.

>>Does it really come as a great surprise to anyone that China routinely
>>violates Amnesty International (and United Nations) standards for
>>humane treatment?  I'm not sure what this has to do with MFN status.

>Some people think it's immoral to economically support, through trade
>or otherwise, a regime which routinely ignores basic human rights.
>Hence, past trade embargos on South Africa and Russia. One could make
>the argument (although far be it from me to try and support it!), that
>the relative success of Chinese Communism is very much related to our
>continued economic support of China. Surely, we avoid selling
>high-tech and other sensitive materials, but we do help provide money
>and raw materials for the basic infrastructure of the Chinese economy.

Well, I'm glad you don't want to support it, because other than the
occasional grain embargo over things like invading Afghanistan, we
traded routinely with the Soviet Union (except for goods covered under
things like ITARS).  Real hard to support a proposition that simply
doesn't make sense.  Our trade with China is miniscule compared to the
size of the Chinese economy, so any contention that trading with us
contributes to their "relative success" (and we traded with the Soviet
Block, too) simply isn't in accord with reality.

>Personally, I think Bush's support of high trading status for China
>reeks of politics. The people who really make money on Chinese trade
>are the big import/export firms, which help support the transport and
>energy industries.  Bush, of course, would never want to impoverish
>his buddies in these industries, so a few more Chinese prisoners die
>on the work farms to provide cheap hand tools and textiles for the
>American marketplace, resulting in a net export of jobs and import of
>a lot of cheap, poorly made crap.

Sorry, but this is just silly.  I would suggest you examine the actual
size of our trade with China and who is doing it before you continue
to try to impute that this is some kind of profit-driven motive by
George Bush.

>>>A Liar and soft on Communism to boot.   Fuck Bush!  Fuck the asshole 
>>>Republican Senators who give him a veto-override-proof veto on this time 
>>>after time!

>>Oh, well there you go.  That certainly convinces ME of your credibility.

>It's possible to get emotional about a subject and still be factually
>correct.

Yes, it's possible, but it's a lot less likely.  I suggest you go
check out your facts and claims again.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics