The Hunt for Red October?

[MikeWaters]

Any of you read that Tom Clancy Novel?

Imagine how heads exploded when an undetected Chinese sub emerges in the middle of a naval exercise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

[All-American]

I haven't read the novel, but I saw the movie on Friday. I had a very pretty date, too.

Don't remember if the movie was good or not.

[creekster]

I read the book. Pretty good, but it is the only Clancy I ever read.

I think that this incident with the CHinese sub will result in some damage to careers in the Navy. Maybe we are paying too muc h attention to Iraq.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Any of you read that Tom Clancy Novel?

Imagine how heads exploded when an undetected Chinese sub emerges in the middle of a naval exercise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

Recently there was a discussion on here about the best and worst presidents ... is it conincidence that Chinese military capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, technological capabilities increased at an abnormal and alarming rate durring the Clinton years?

How much does China spend each year on corporate espionage? Who opened the door? How many Chinese businessmen made a campaign contribution and slept in the Lincoln bedroom?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Recently there was a discussion on here about the best and worst presidents ... is it conincidence that Chinese military capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, technological capabilities increased at an abnormal and alarming rate durring the Clinton years?

How much does China spend each year on corporate espionage? Who opened the door? How many Chinese businessmen made a campaign contribution and slept in the Lincoln bedroom?

I'm stunned at your logic. Stunned.

The faith that people have George Bush is just unfathomable to me. THe utter incompetence and people not only give him a pass, but actually BELIEVE in him.

Now I have no idea what Clinton did with corporate interests. But I am not so naive as to believe that Bush cleaned up ANYTHING when he came into office. The same backs are being scratched.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm stunned at your logic. Stunned.

The faith that people have George Bush is just unfathomable to me. THe utter incompetence and people not only give him a pass, but actually BELIEVE in him.

Now I have no idea what Clinton did with corporate interests. But I am not so naive as to believe that Bush cleaned up ANYTHING when he came into office. The same backs are being scratched.

The real answer is none of us know a damn thing about who is to blame. Some will want to blame Clinton; others will want to blame Bush. It sounds as if this incident is the result of military intelligence and judgment, the failure to identify the potential threat from electric running submarines. Why all angles aren't examined is beyond me.

How can a President know if his advisers or military personnel are smart enough?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The real answer is none of us know a damn thing about who is to blame. Some will want to blame Clinton; others will want to blame Bush. It sounds as if this incident is the result of military intelligence and judgment, the failure to identify the potential threat from electric running submarines. Why all angles aren't examined is beyond me.

How can a President know if his advisers or military personnel are smart enough?

I'm not sure Bush ever wanted to be around people who would disagree with him.

Gates is too little too late. If he had had a few more Gates in 2001, we might not be in the mess we're in.

Of course, I'm not saying Clinton was any different.

The point is that China will be coddled, now, and next year, and the year after. It doesn't matter if it is Romney, or Clinton or anyone else.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not sure Bush ever wanted to be around people who would disagree with him.

Gates is too little too late. If he had had a few more Gates in 2001, we might not be in the mess we're in.

Of course, I'm not saying Clinton was any different.

The point is that China will be coddled, now, and next year, and the year after. It doesn't matter if it is Romney, or Clinton or anyone else.

So you're saying the correct posture is to be antagonistic toward China? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and to take potshots at the participants.

Is it generally good to have a favorable relationship with China or an adversarial relationship?

What does ignoring the silence of electric motors in submarines have to do with coddling?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you're saying the correct posture is to be antagonistic toward China? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and to take potshots at the participants.

Is it generally good to have a favorable relationship with China or an adversarial relationship?

What does ignoring the silence of electric motors in submarines have to do with coddling?

If there is ever a choice between making money or taking a moral stand, the USA will always choose the $. That's what I mean.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If there is ever a choice between making money or taking a moral stand, the USA will always choose the $. That's what I mean.

This is a point with which I disagree. People take "moral stands', countries do not. Nor should they.

Countries should always act based on self-interest. You appear to be judging nation-states on personal standards not on historical nation-state standards, a fundamental weakness of American politics. No great nation-state has ever taken the stance you propose. And none ever will.

Of course I disagree with your characterization as well.