View Full Version : Cousin of wikileaks thread: China aiding Taliban
TLAM Strike
12-19-10, 12:24 AM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/12/13/AW_12_13_2010_p25-275120.xml&headline=WeaponsMigrateFromChinatoAfghanistan&channel=awst
A British military official contends that Chinese specialists have been seen training Taliban fighters in the use of infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. This is supported by a May 13, 2008, classified U.S. State Department document released by WikiLeaks telling U.S. officials to confront Chinese officials about missile proliferation.Not limited to Afghanistan either.
“In April 2008, coalition forces recovered from a cache in Basra, Iraq, at least two Chinese-produced Iranian-supplied QW-1 manpads that we assess were provided by Iran to Iraqi Shia militants. The date of production for the recovered QW-1 systems is 2003, but it is not known when these particular launchers were transferred by China to Iran or when the launchers entered Iraq,” the cable says. “Beijing has typically responded by asserting that its sales are in accordance with international law, that it requires end-users to sign agreements pledging not to retransfer the weapons, or—disingenuously in the judgment of [U.S. government] technical experts—that it cannot confirm that the weapons recovered by coalition forces in Iraq are actually Chinese in origin.”When I tried to reach Tehran for comment all I got was this: :haha::haha::haha:
China is bribing our "Allies" to switch sides...
In fact, the Wiki*Leaks trove of State Department documents reveals a confrontation between the U.S. and Chinese ambassadors in Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. official, Tatiana Gfoeller, asked Zhang Yannian in early 2009 about a covert attempt by China to bribe the Kyrgyz government with $3 billion in cash to close the U.S. military base at Manas, which is a primary logistics center for operations in Afghanistan.I've said it before... who wants to bet OBL is hiding in Xinjiang Province in western China? :-?
GoldenRivet
12-19-10, 01:55 AM
The plot thickens
Freiwillige
12-19-10, 03:10 AM
Good ol' commies never change there stripes. Go figure we bail them out of WWII which was a mistake looking at things then they turn on us in human waves in Korea 6 years later!
MacArthur was right.
Typical commie bastages!
Tribesman
12-19-10, 04:15 AM
Go figure we bail them out of WWII which was a mistake looking at things then they turn on us in human waves in Korea 6 years later!
Go figure, you jump in to a suspended years old civil war for your own advantage, the side in that civil war you are really backing ends up hoofing it to an offshore island when things turn out bad for them and you are somehow surprised when the other side isn't very friendly afterwards.
Funny isn't it, you are complaining about the actions of a govt. and its relations to your country in the 1950s when your govt. didn't even recognise the govt. of that country until 1971.
Skybird
12-19-10, 05:07 AM
Remember the Rwanda genocide. In the weeks before it broke loose, the Chinese delivered shiploads of machetes. Not firearms - machetes. Most of the killing and torturing and hacking was done with these.
krashkart
12-19-10, 08:08 AM
Remember the Rwanda genocide. In the weeks before it broke loose, the Chinese delivered shiploads of machetes. Not firearms - machetes. Most of the killing and torturing and hacking was done with these.
That I did not know. :-?
EDIT: Of the highest quality, I'm sure! *ZING!!* :har:
Am I going to Hell for that? :-?
Can't say I'm surprised. China needs the US to have its attention focused elsewhere.
Blood_splat
12-19-10, 10:56 AM
Who cares we all save big at Walmart.
Takeda Shingen
12-19-10, 11:28 AM
Can't say I'm surprised. China needs the US to have its attention focused elsewhere.
I think it is more along the lines of China needing the US to continue to spend money in Afghanistan. They send a few thousand in supplies and the US spends a few billion trying in vain to take those supplies away. Makes for good business sense if you can gut you competitor for pennies.
TLAM Strike
12-19-10, 11:41 AM
I think it is more along the lines of China needing the US to continue to spend money in Afghanistan. They send a few thousand in supplies and the US spends a few billion trying in vain to take those supplies away. Makes for good business sense if you can gut you competitor for pennies.
Yea its all fun and games until a US Patrol finds the body of a PLA adviser with some Taliban after a drone strike. Then we start getting in to Casus Belli stuff...
Takeda Shingen
12-19-10, 11:53 AM
Yea its all fun and games until a US Patrol finds the body of a PLA adviser with some Taliban after a drone strike. Then we start getting in to Casus Belli stuff...
I doubt we'll ever see that. These type of things tend not to unfold like they do in Tom Clancy novels.
TLAM Strike
12-19-10, 11:56 AM
I doubt we'll ever see that. These type of things tend not to unfold like they do in Tom Clancy novels. Like the Gulf of Tonkin? :03:
krashkart
12-19-10, 11:58 AM
I doubt we'll ever see that. These type of things tend not to unfold like they do in Tom Clancy novels.
Behind every war that doesn't happen are diplomats doing a very good job, IME. :hmmm:
Takeda Shingen
12-19-10, 11:58 AM
Like the Gulf of Tonkin? :03:
No, much more like Vietnam itself. Nothing sexy about it.
C'mon guys, it all gets down to Asia being a strategic No-No for the west. At least within the present mind-set of western strategists and operational planners. We have ground troops there for almost 10 years now and we still look like awkward teenagers going to their first party!
:yep:
.
Capt. Morgan
12-19-10, 02:30 PM
Good ol' commies never change there stripes. Go figure we bail them out of WWII ...
I hope you're not saying that the U.S. bailed out the Soviet Union in WWII.
I hope you're not saying that the U.S. bailed out the Soviet Union in WWII.
Think he was referring to ChiComs, although IIRC the US was more on the Kai-sheks side than Maos...but either which way, they and the Soviets kicked the Japs out of China.
the_tyrant
12-19-10, 09:50 PM
the possibility of this being true is really unlikely
Some ideas i got from a chinese forum:
"This is really unlikely, since the Taliban supports 东突(a Chinese Islamic terrorist organization)"
"China has a lot of investments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many Chinese experts are sent there to support the local government, I do not believe that china will actually do this"
"China sells weapons to Pakistan, so it is most likely that the Taliban got Chinese equipment from Pakistan"
TLAM Strike
12-19-10, 10:54 PM
the possibility of this being true is really unlikely
Some ideas i got from a chinese forum:
"This is really unlikely, since the Taliban supports 东突(a Chinese Islamic terrorist organization)"
"China has a lot of investments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many Chinese experts are sent there to support the local government, I do not believe that china will actually do this"
"China sells weapons to Pakistan, so it is most likely that the Taliban got Chinese equipment from Pakistan" Well if they got these weapons from Pakistan or Iran than that would be in violation of the reexport prohibitions that are part of such arms deals. In such a case China must stop exporting weapons to these countries otherwise these prohibitions are meaningless and the Chinese are just as guilty.
No, much more like Vietnam itself. Nothing sexy about it.
Well now that really depended on where you got to take your shore leave. :O:
Takeda Shingen
12-19-10, 11:33 PM
Well now that really depended on where you got to take your shore leave. :O:
:haha:
Tribesman
12-20-10, 03:03 AM
Well if they got these weapons from Pakistan or Iran than that would be in violation of the reexport prohibitions that are part of such arms deals. In such a case China must stop exporting weapons to these countries otherwise these prohibitions are meaningless and the Chinese are just as guilty.
Where did the communist bloc weapons that were shipped to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan come from and who was involved in that re exporting of weapons to terrorists?
Come to think of it wasn't Reagan involved in several illegal arms deals?
Glass houses eh
TLAM Strike
12-20-10, 11:55 AM
Where did the communist bloc weapons that were shipped to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan come from and who was involved in that re exporting of weapons to terrorists? Those weapons we got from China for that, we didn't have any agreement about reexport.
Come to think of it wasn't Reagan involved in several illegal arms deals?
Glass houses ehAt least we were doing it to get our citizens back. What are the Chinese doing it for? Money...
the_tyrant
12-20-10, 12:31 PM
Those weapons we got from China for that, we didn't have any agreement about reexport.
At least we were doing it to get our citizens back. What are the Chinese doing it for? Money...
Its all geopolitics, screwing with the us is pretty high on their priorities
Tribesman
12-20-10, 01:20 PM
Those weapons we got from China for that, we didn't have any agreement about reexport.
Did you have an agreement that the US weapons shipments could be re exported to third governments and non government groups?
Then again that small potatos when you have exports of US arms to groups and countries that are subject to arms embargos.
Hey your govt even has a long running habit of still suppling weapons to terrorists and governments after passing legislation explicitly banning the arms shipments to them
So sorry TLAM leave it to others to complain about China being dodgy as you support the same dodgy deals and your govt is equally as guilty as you are saying China is.
Ain't that a bugger when you find you are the moral equivalents of the chinese communist dictatorship:rotfl2:
onelifecrisis
12-20-10, 02:12 PM
Ain't that a bugger when you find you are the moral equivalents of the chinese communist dictatorship:rotfl2:
Now that's not really fair on the Chinese, Tribesman. They don't support such behaviour with votes. ;)
TLAM Strike
12-20-10, 02:21 PM
Did you have an agreement that the US weapons shipments could be re exported to third governments and non government groups?
Then again that small potatos when you have exports of US arms to groups and countries that are subject to arms embargos.
Hey your govt even has a long running habit of still suppling weapons to terrorists and governments after passing legislation explicitly banning the arms shipments to them
So sorry TLAM leave it to others to complain about China being dodgy as you support the same dodgy deals and your govt is equally as guilty as you are saying China is.
Ain't that a bugger when you find you are the moral equivalents of the chinese communist dictatorship:rotfl2:
But the stuff we export is generally defensive in nature. Chinese CSS-2 IRBMs don't defend airspace, F-15s do. The Varang and Gorshkov were not purchased to defend their own harbors. We only sell the purely offensive weapons to our close allies in NATO and the Asian Rim.
For every weapon we export to some shady group we export a hundred to an ally. All the Chinese seem to do is arm 3rd world despots. How many free and democratic nations arm their militaries with Chinese weapons?
A British military official contends that Chinese specialists have been seen training Taliban fighters in the use of infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles.
Reminds me... lets see.. US (CIA) officials delivering missiles to the Taliban (Mujahedin) back in, when was it, the early eighties. :03:
Tribesman
12-20-10, 02:46 PM
The Varang and Gorshkov were not purchased to defend their own harbors.
You really shouldn't mention harbours, after all it just brings up an opening for that old line about State sponsored terrorism...you know State sponsored terrorism like what is so bad its done by countries like the axis of evil:03:
So would you like to open up further the moral equivalence measure of the US and some fundamentalist theocracy or third world dictatorship?
For every weapon we export to some shady group we export a hundred to an ally.
So if I help an old lady across the road lots of times it isn't bad if I do a murder once in a while.
How many free and democratic nations arm their militaries with Chinese weapons?
How many dictatorships has the US supported and armed?
See the problem yet? you are condemning the very same things that you support and in trying to justify the very thing yiou condemn aredigging yourself ever deeper into the pile of nasty crap that you know is very nasty.
Reminds me... lets see.. US (CIA) officials delivering missiles to the Taliban (Mujahedin) back in, when was it, the early eighties. :03:
Mujahedin is not the same thing as being Taliban. You do realize that right?
XabbaRus
12-20-10, 03:24 PM
Yes but the Mujahadein some of them became the Taliban, and it is the same matter.
EG, Russia was fighting against the Mujahadein, Russia was the enemy of the US, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, therefore the US supplies Stinger missiles to the Muahadein.
Now.
US & NATO is fighting against the Taliba, NATO is viewed maybe not as a straight enemy by China but close enough, so China supplies the Taliban with Chinese equivalent to Stinger missiles as the enemy of the guy who is a pain in the butt and could become my enemy is my friend.
I personally don't believe it as I can't see what China would have to gain, but if true then I think the logic above is comparable to the US supply the Mujahadein with Stingers is in the same vein.
I wouldn't be suprised though if the Chinese know the Iranian weapons are being lost so to speak and ending up in 'stan.
Although there is, perhaps, a small element of truth in it because it's likely that some of the Mujahideen wound up in the Taliban. The situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout got rather confusing and bloody.
Tribesman
12-20-10, 07:37 PM
Mujahedin is not the same thing as being Taliban. You do realize that right?
Yes, the Muhahadeen were set up with foriegn assistance and local co-ordination from the ISI in refugee settlements in the tribal belt, whereas the Taliban were set up with foriegn assistance and local co-ordination from the ISI in refugee settlements in the tribal belt.
Clear as mud:up:
The confusion arises because the taliban were mujahadeen but were only one faction out of the ever shifting alliances of factions within the mujahadeen
Although there is, perhaps, a small element of truth in it because it's likely that some of the Mujahideen wound up in the Taliban. The situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout got rather confusing and bloody.
Yep. Folks love to label everything into neat little categories for their own purposes, usually having nothing to do with the reality for those being defined. As you say the real situation was rather less clear.
I find it not surprising at all that the Chinese would covertly support the Taliban. China has always attempted to control the countries on it's borders, and it would at least be a way of hedging their bet if the Taliban were to return to power.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:19 AM
Yep. Folks love to label everything into neat little categories for their own purposes, usually having nothing to do with the reality for those being defined. As you say the real situation was rather less clear.
I find it not surprising at all that the Chinese would covertly support the Taliban. China has always attempted to control the countries on it's borders, and it would at least be a way of hedging their bet if the Taliban were to return to power.
I suppose they have a lot to gain by having us fail overthere.:shifty: I dunno, what can you do? They have us on a short leash, or they may come and collect the money we owe them.
We could pull a 19th century Russia move and sell them Kali-fornia and Ore-gone.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:21 AM
...atleast China would solve the border issue.:hmmm:
And is anyone surprised at this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions #Afghanistan_1978-1980s:yawn:
I suppose they have a lot to gain by having us fail overthere.:shifty: I dunno, what can you do? They have us on a short leash, or they may come and collect the money we owe them.
I don't think the purpose is to make us fail so much as it is to position themselves as a friendly to the Taliban if they should regain power. That and bleed us a bit for supporting their dissidents and the Dali Lama.
[quote]We could pull a 19th century Russia move and sell them Kali-fornia and Ore-gone.
A decision that Russians have been kicking themselves in the butt for almost a century and a half now! :DL
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=nikimcbee;1557693]I suppose they have a lot to gain by having us fail overthere.:shifty: I dunno, what can you do? They have us on a short leash, or they may come and collect the money we owe them.
I don't think the purpose is to make us fail so much as it is to position themselves as a friendly to the Taliban if they should regain power. That and bleed us a bit for supporting their dissidents and the Dali Lama.
A decision that Russians have been kicking themselves in the butt for almost a century and a half now! :DL
I have a hard time reading China. There's days I think I totally understand them and days they totally baffle me.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 11:38 AM
I have a hard time reading China. There's days I think I totally understand them and days they totally baffle me.
Me too. It is clear from their rapid ascent that they have a plan, but sometimes I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the hell it is.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:10 PM
Me too. It is clear from their rapid ascent that they have a plan...
Why do you think a rapid ascent implies a plan?
TLAM Strike
12-21-10, 12:13 PM
Why do you think a rapid ascent implies a plan?
Exactly, most plans in the PRC involve smelting iron in back yards or other such nonsense. They got a billion people offered their first bit of financial freedom in 60 years, they are going to suck in resources and money like a black hole for decades because of it.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 12:20 PM
Why do you think a rapid ascent implies a plan?
Because no nation in the history of man has risen to prominence without planning. Progress is never accidental.
I suppose they have a lot to gain by having us fail overthere.:shifty: I dunno, what can you do? They have us on a short leash, or they may come and collect the money we owe them.
We could pull a 19th century Russia move and sell them Kali-fornia and Ore-gone.
If China puts the US economy down the plughole, it will be committing suicide. Chinas economy is very linked to the US, if one falls, the other will. Furthermore, the US can recover quicker than China can from such a fall. So, the US is actually in a better position than most think.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:30 PM
Because no nation in the history of man has risen to prominence without planning.
You really think China is in a position of "prominence"? In my mind, economic success does not equal prominence, especially when said success is almost entirely dependent on income from nations that really are prominent. Find me something I can buy in the west that doesn't say "Made In China"!
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:34 PM
the US can recover quicker than China can from such a fall
This, IMHO.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 12:36 PM
You really think China is in a position of "prominence"? In my mind, economic success does not equal prominence, especially when said success is almost entirely dependent on income from nations that really are prominent. Find me something I can buy in the west that doesn't say "Made In China"!
It wasn't military might that made the 20th Century the 'American' Century, for all of the gains in that area, as well as those in science and society were made on the strong back of the American economy. Today, all economic and business discussion revolves around China. If that is not prominence, then I know not what is.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:43 PM
It wasn't military might that made the 20th Century the 'American' Century, for all of the gains in that area, as well as those in science and society were made on the strong back of the American economy. Today, all economic and business discussion revolves around China. If that is not prominence, then I know not what is.
Are you kidding? WW2 made America.
I didn't mean to imply that the strength of a nation's economy does not matter, but I don't see that China's economy rules the world. Rather, the world rules China's economy. But hey, I'm no economist!
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 01:07 PM
Are you kidding? WW2 made America.
I didn't mean to imply that the strength of a nation's economy does not matter, but I don't see that China's economy rules the world. Rather, the world rules China's economy. But hey, I'm no economist!
WWII did in fact make America. However, it made America because it made America the world's leading exporter of goods and services. It made large amounts of the world dependent upon American machines, American technology, American weapons, American logistics, and most of all, American money. It is no different than the fact that it was the East India Trading Company, not the Royal Navy, that rendered the Indian subcontinent unto the Crown. It's always about the economy.
Tribesman
12-21-10, 01:17 PM
Are you kidding? WW2 made America.
It was WW1 that made America as it demolished so much of the old world order and sent the rest into terminal decline.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 01:24 PM
It was WW1 that made America as it demolished so much of the old world order and sent the rest into terminal decline.
I disagree. Following the creation of the League of Nations, the United States, for the most part, withdrew from global politics; pursuing a policy of diplomatic isolationism and economic protctionism. It is why we were, essentially, late to the party for WWII. The opposite policy was taken after 1945, which is what truly lead to the US's position as a world leader.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 01:24 PM
It was WW1 that made America as it demolished so much of the old world order and sent the rest into terminal decline.
But wasn't it WW2 that gave the American industrial machine a massive NOS injection?
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 01:36 PM
Regardless, I disagree that nations rise to prominence through planning, and I especially disagree that economic growth has much at all to do with planning. If a nation suddenly discovers a massive new supply of valuable materials, or if the global economy shifts in such a way as to make a particular commodity much more (or less) valuable than it was previously, then the economies of the different nations will shift accordingly. No planning in that.
Tribesman
12-21-10, 01:41 PM
I disagree. Following the creation of the League of Nations, the United States, for the most part, withdrew from global politics; pursuing a policy of diplomatic isolationism and economic protctionism.
That was because WW1 had left it in a position where it was able to so while the former powers(those that still existed) found themselves vainly continuing resisting their inevitable slide due to the global upheaval that demolished the very trade and diplomacy positions which had made them powers in the first place.
You pointed out for example how the EIC with all the trade from and to the sub-continent was instumental in building the British world power.
Indian trade like all maritime trade suffered greatly in WW1 and never recovered in the interwar period.
WW 2 just finished off the process for the remaining european powers which was already irreversable anyway
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 01:52 PM
Regardless, I disagree that nations rise to prominence through planning, and I especially disagree that economic growth has much at all to do with planning. If a nation suddenly discovers a massive new supply of valuable materials, or if the global economy shifts in such a way as to make a particular commodity much more (or less) valuable than it was previously, then the economies of the different nations will shift accordingly. No planning in that.
But remember, we're not talking about a open, democratic nation like Great Britian or the United States. The totalitarian nature of the Chinese system lends exactly to this kind of planning. The histories of these types of systems are littered with examples of 5-year, 15-year and 30-year plans. The type of development in Chinese industry and technology certainly points to a concerted effort by the government, which I do not find at all surprising.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 01:57 PM
That was because WW1 had left it in a position where it was able to so while the former powers(those that still existed) found themselves vainly continuing resisting their inevitable slide due to the global upheaval that demolished the very trade and diplomacy positions which had made them powers in the first place.
You pointed out for example how the EIC with all the trade from and to the sub-continent was instumental in building the British world power.
Indian trade like all maritime trade suffered greatly in WW1 and never recovered in the interwar period.
WW 2 just finished off the process for the remaining european powers which was already irreversable anyway
I see what you are saying, and I agree with it. However, a nation can only exert global influence if it choses to exert it. The policy of the United States from 1919 until 1941, with exception to meddlings in China and, of course, Lend-Lease, was specifically not to exert influence. It was only the thread of the Soviet sphere of influence, and to that extent the famous urging of Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' analogy, that changed that policy. Otherwise, the US would have likely gone back into it's shell, so to speak.
I see what you are saying, and I agree with it. However, a nation can only exert global influence if it choses to exert it. The policy of the United States from 1919 until 1941, with exception to meddlings in China and, of course, Lend-Lease, was specifically not to exert influence. It was only the thread of the Soviet sphere of influence, and to that extent the famous urging of Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' analogy, that changed that policy. Otherwise, the US would have likely gone back into it's shell, so to speak.
Then there is the point that except for the TR years, the US was essentially isolationist before WW1 as well.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.