 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2008(OT:) China warns US, "Don't shoot down satellite"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php Missile-ready China warns U.S. against plan to destroy spy satellite By David Lague Published: February 18, 2008 BEIJING: In response to a U.S. plan to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite, China has warned against threats to security in outer space, without mentioning its own successful anti-satellite missile test last year. But, OK for China: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm China has confirmed it carried out a test that destroyed a satellite, ... China is now only the third country to shoot something down in space Who do they think they're talking to? LOL at China threatening us.. they just blew up a satelite for no good reason last year... > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who do they think they're talking to? > LOL at China threatening us.. they just blew up a satelite for no good > reason last year... Exactly. Think of this: your computer was probably made in China, and if not, the parts probably were. China has big plans for 2020: Chinese man on the moon, Chinese rover to Mars, Chinese this, Chinese that. Have any idea how easy it is to program your BIOS to kill your computer on the first day of Chinese New Year, 2020? >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Who do they think they're talking to? >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Who do they think they're talking to? > LOL at China threatening us.. they just blew up a satelite for no good > reason last year... There was a good reason: They invented fireworks, and they're trying to modernize the concept. >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > There was a good reason: They invented fireworks, and they're trying to > modernize the concept. Come on Joe! China has a missle program specifically intended to shoot down satellites. They do not want space based stuff that can see the ICBMs they have, and they have developed (are developing) a missle system that can shoot down those satellites. China shot down a satellite recently that was so high, it wll leave a debris field that will clutter up the orbit altitude for years. They are in a weak position to tell us what we can shoot at. > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who do they think they're talking to? China is telling the US to not carry out missile defense tests. The US should respond by emphasizing that the satellite will be intercepted only to protect human life, and this will be no missile test because the missile system has already been perfected. As long as GW Bush behaves toward China the way he has toward Africa, there won't be any problems. >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > as GW Bush behaves toward China the way he has toward Africa, there > won't be any problems. Why should China tell us not to caryy out missle defense tests? They did one of their own last year! > >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why should China tell us not to caryy out missle defense tests? They did > one of their own last year! Guess for the same reason the USA tells other countries not to develop nukes while they have them theirselves? Who is the USA to decide such things? And, in the same line of thought, who is China to decide such things for other countries. This is where political connections come into play, it isn't easy. -- Martijn >> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Guess for the same reason the USA tells other countries not to develop > nukes while they have them theirselves? Sometimes we pay them to develop nukes, while at the same time telling them not to. What a show. Pass the popcorn. >> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Who is the USA to decide such things? When you're dealing with an Iranian l00natic, I see no problem. When you're dealing with a nation like Pakistan, that at any time could be overrun by Taliban, I see no problem. > And, in the same line of thought, who is China to decide such things for > other countries. > > This is where political connections come into play, it isn't easy. Very true. >>> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > When you're dealing with an Iranian l00natic, I see no problem. We enabled Iran to get nuclear technology 25 years ago, intentionally. > When you're dealing with a nation like Pakistan, that at any time could be > overrun by Taliban, I see no problem. Oh. What's Pakistan's government gonna do? Nuke their own country? >>>> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>> >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Oh. What's Pakistan's government gonna do? Nuke their own country? No, silly. If Taliban gains control they have a nice arsenal of nucular weapons at their disposal. Wouldn't that be nice. >>>>> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>>> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Wouldn't that be nice. Where's Reagan buried? Go take a sh.t on his grave. He intentionally arranged for Pakistant to have nuclear weapons. Intentionally. I mean, he meant to, and he intentionally kept our intelligence agencies from putting a stop to it. Take a big, steamy sh.t right on Reagan's grave. > > Who is the USA to decide such things? > > When you're dealing with an Iranian l00natic, I see no problem. > When you're dealing with a nation like Pakistan, that at any time could be > overrun by Taliban, I see no problem. OTOH when dealing with a harmless 2-bit dictator, like Saddam Hussein, you see a problem, support war against his country and end up turning Iran and Pakistan into big problems. Another member of the kooky left is in the NG it appears LOL > Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you see a problem, support war against his country and end up turning > Iran and Pakistan into big problems. > > OTOH when dealing with a harmless 2-bit dictator, like Saddam Hussein, > > you see a problem, support war against his country and end up turning > > Iran and Pakistan into big problems. > Another member of the kooky left is in the NG it appears LOL Nothing kooky or leftist about it, just realistic. >> > Who is the USA to decide such things? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > see a problem, support war against his country and end up turning Iran > and Pakistan into big problems. He wasn't harmless, he had $48B stashed away that was supposed to have been used in the "Oil for Food/Medicine" program. None of that money went to what it was meant to, and what do you suppose he was going to do with it? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to what it was meant to, and what do you suppose he was going to do with > it? I wonder why we didn't give a f.ck about other (and worse) humanitarian horrors going on at the same time in other countries. >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I wonder why we didn't give a f.ck about other (and worse) humanitarian > horrors going on at the same time in other countries. Were they threatening the US? >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Were they threatening the US? No, and neither was Iraq. Here's the correct answer: Some backwater country in Africa had nothing we need, unless we happened to have a sorghum shortage at the time. If millions of people were being hacked up with machetes in a country which had oil, we would've been all over it like stink on sh.t. > >>>>> > Who is the USA to decide such things? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > at the time. If millions of people were being hacked up with machetes in a > country which had oil, we would've been all over it like stink on sh.t. No doubt about it ... When Powell did his infamous Powell-Point Presentation in front of the UN, all I could think was "no way, no-one is going to believe this crap". Lo and behold, my government did (The Netherlands), damn, was I surprised. All of the sudden, the US had to go into Iraq while there was no proper evidence back then, and there still isn't any right now... Damn. And during all this time, Afghanistan is getting from bad to worse... Great job there. -- Martijn > Damn. And during all this time, Afghanistan is getting from bad to > worse... Great job there. The BBC early this morning said Afghanistan is doing GREAT!!!! It was a story about Bin Laden, and it was something to the effect that now he's in Pakistan, things are evening out in Afghanistan. Course, the BBC has been proven wrong by some in this group... Where in the Netherlands? > >> > Who is the USA to decide such things? > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to what it was meant to, and what do you suppose he was going to do with > it? Obviously he gave it to Osama Bin Laden and the ghost of Hitler so they could carry out 9/11. $48B is doubtful. Source? >Who is the USA to decide such things? The strongest country in the world.... That makes us top dog.....  SignatureScott in Florida > >Who is the USA to decide such things? > > The strongest country in the world.... > > That makes us top dog..... That just put a smile on my face, thanks for that. -- Martijn >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That just put a smile on my face, thanks for that. I figured it would. ...and it did not cost a penny. SignatureScott in Florida > >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ...and it did not cost a penny. Not a smile of satisfaction though, but rather of enjoyment at your statement and its arrogance. -- Martijn >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Not a smile of satisfaction though, but rather of enjoyment >at your statement and its arrogance. It ain't arrogant when it is true..... SignatureScott in Florida > >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It ain't arrogant when it is true..... Correct. But strenght can be measured in many different ways. -- Martijn >> >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >But strenght can be measured in many different ways. By just about any measure America is Number 1..... SignatureScott in Florida > >> >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > By just about any measure America is Number 1..... It seems they're certainly number 1 in being able to brainwash a large number of people in their population... *g* -- Martijn >> >> >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- > Martijn Always remember when reading Scott's nonsense that he is medically or pharmaceutically different than most people. We're not sure of the details, but the evidence is clear. >>> >> >> >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? >>> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >pharmaceutically different than most people. We're not sure of the details, >but the evidence is clear. How could you possibly lose a half million dollars to me? SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:26:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > How could you possibly lose a half million dollars to me? What are you talking about? >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:26:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" >> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >What are you talking about? The bet you made and lost to me.... You know..... SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:55:37 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > You know..... No, I don't. I have no idea what you're talking about. >No, I don't. I have no idea what you're talking about. You bet me a half million dollars and lost. SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:00:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You bet me a half million dollars and lost. Not that I recall. >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:00:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" >> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not that I recall. Must be the drugs you and your circle jerk buddy take.... SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:05:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Must be the drugs you and your circle jerk buddy take.... Seriously - no bet was ever made. You need to get more fresh air, and a new doctor. >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:05:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" >> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Seriously - no bet was ever made. You need to get more fresh air, and a new >doctor. ROFLMAO The pot smoking dummy is playing dumb. Where is your circle jerker bud? SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:20:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Where is your circle jerker bud? Banging your wife. >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:20:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" >> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Banging your wife. That is a physical impossibility! You have his dick in your hand.... SignatureScott in Florida > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:45:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You have his dick in your hand.... Let me guess: You killed your wife, and you're posting from prison. >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:45:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" >> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Let me guess: You killed your wife, and you're posting from prison. Wanna bet? ROFLMAO SignatureScott in Florida >> Where is your circle jerker bud? > > Banging your wife. Sorry. She's used to guiding the inept. No need for her to change horses mid-stream. >>> Where is your circle jerker bud? >> >> Banging your wife. > >Sorry. She's used to guiding the inept. No need for her to change >horses mid-stream. ROFLMAO I OWN YOU WITLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SignatureScott in Florida > >No, I don't. I have no idea what you're talking about. > > You bet me a half million dollars and lost. You need to stop while you're behind. Your bets are illegal and therefore uncollectable in court, so your only hope of receiving economic gain is through out-of-court settlements where your lawyer essentially extorts money from the plaintiffs. >> >No, I don't. I have no idea what you're talking about. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >economic gain is through out-of-court settlements where your lawyer >essentially extorts money from the plaintiffs. I can and will collect. The fun is having two idiots on the string. They made stupid bets and lost. SignatureScott in Florida >> >> It ain't arrogant when it is true..... >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It seems they're certainly number 1 in being able to brainwash a large > number of people in their population... Yes, but we're trying to keep Hillary OUT of the White House for a second time... On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:17:28 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote: >>> >> It ain't arrogant when it is true..... >>> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Yes, but we're trying to keep Hillary OUT of the White House for a second >time... Actually we are using her to tear apart the Democratic Party....LOL SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > >Who is the USA to decide such things? > > The strongest country in the world.... > > That makes us top dog..... Spoken like a true a.shole who thinks like a 2-bit dictator. Scott in Florida wrote: > >Who is the USA to decide such things? > > The strongest country in the world.... Strong enough to get bin Laden? No, no, no -- don't say it's Bill Clinton'fault because because GW Bush has been in charge for the past seven years. > That makes us top dog..... That's what Napoleon thought of his country, and look what happened. OTOH George Washington never thought that way. >Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Clinton'fault because because GW Bush has been in charge for the past >seven years. Tell us again how Billy Bob Blow Job Klintoon had him in his sights and did not have the guts to pull the trigger! Liberals are cowards... >> That makes us top dog..... > >That's what Napoleon thought of his country, and look what happened. >OTOH George Washington never thought that way. ROFLMAO You libs are a trip. SignatureScott in Florida >>Scott in Florida wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Liberals are cowards... You are uninformed and illiterate. Spring 2002: Informants spot Ayman al-Zawahiri in a medical clinic in Gardez, Afghanistan. Green Berets are located just five minutes away, but they are ordered to stand down so SEAL Team Six, can raid the clinic and capture or kill al-Zawahiri. But the SEAL team is apparently located much farther away and too much time elapses while they are preparing for the raid, allowing al-Zawahiri to escape. In 2004, the Washington Post will mention this as one of a series of incidents in which Green Berets units were passed over and opportunities to get important wanted men were lost. http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/006515.html Scott in Florida wrote: > >> >Who is the USA to decide such things? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Tell us again how Billy Bob Blow Job Klintoon had him in his sights > and did not have the guts to pull the trigger! He didn't have him in his sights, contrary to what Rush Limbaugh tells you. So again, why hasn't GW Bush been able to catch bin Laden? > Liberals are cowards... That makes you and Rush Limbaugh a couple of liberals. > That makes us top dog..... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You libs are a trip. That's another example of you not understanding what was written. Tell me: How much power did Napoleon want? How much did Washington want? >> Tell us again how Billy Bob Blow Job Klintoon had him in his sights >> and did not have the guts to pull the trigger! > >He didn't have him in his sights, Oh? cite..... SignatureScott in Florida >> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > -- > Martijn Limp-wristed faggots, such as yourself, would just sit back and let the desposts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, NK, Iran etc..have THEIR way, because, after all, SARCASM switch on, it is THEIR territory and not that of the U.S., Canada, China etc.. > >> >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Limp-wristed faggots, such as yourself, would just sit back and let the Ad hominem. From my few statemens I made, you draw such conclusions? Have you ever learned to actually discuss things instead of using personal attacks? I feel sorry for you and your lack of communication skills. Then again, it is you, behind your PC that is uttering these statements against total strangers... so easy. > desposts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, NK, Iran etc..have > THEIR way, because, after all, SARCASM switch on, it is THEIR territory and > not that of the U.S., Canada, China etc.. No sarcasm here, but have you noticed the US never finished the war with Afghansistan, for which they had a good reason, and moved on into the quagmire of Iraq? Oh well, kudos to you, but by the time you have pulled your own head out of your arse, you and others in your country probably won't be able to buy a single Italian Lire with your US dollars... But hey, as long as it's best for your country... (now, that WAS sarcasm) Time for you to come back with a statement that attacks the message and discusses it without resorting to personal attacks... if you can. -- Martijn > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why should China tell us not to carry out missle defense tests? They did > one of their own last year! Here's China's mindset: China is the most important, most sophisticated nation on Earth, and the rest of the world is barbaric in comparison. They've believed that for many centuries. And why did you assume, even for a nanosecond, that foreign policy wasn't and won't always be full of hypocrisy? >> > China is telling the US to not carry out missile defense tests. The >> > US should respond by emphasizing that the satellite will be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And why did you assume, even for a nanosecond, that foreign policy wasn't > and won't always be full of hypocrisy? And we're sending all our money over there?!?! Believ me, I have begun looking for "Made in China", to AVOID it if at all possible! And I never assumed that FP isn't full of hipocrasy. On the contrary, it's LOADED! > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who do they think they're talking to? Somewhere on this planet, there seems to be a school where government employees from all nations learn to make stupid public announcements. Here's another, from an article about our attempt to shoot down the satellite: "A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down." Changes will be reversed? Let's consider the possible interpretations of that statement: 1) They'll undo the changes made to the specific missile that was launched, and is now in pieces. Nah...that can't be right. 2) They'll tell all involved in the work to forget what they knew or learned while adapting the missile for this mission. That's dumb. That can't be right. 3) We will be sure to have a few modified missiles ready at all times for another such mission, but the Navy doesn't want anybody to believe this. Also known as the "with a wink and a nod" school of public announcements. We only built one ha ha ha ha. I think #3 most closely matches the stupidity of China asking us not to snuff the satellite. If one did a proper search they would discover they did not modify the missiles. The Navy modified the system that controls the missiles so as to hit a satellite rather than another missile. Reported to be at a cost of 30 to 40 million dollars > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message > 3) We will be sure to have a few modified missiles ready at all times for > another such mission, but the Navy doesn't want anybody to believe this. > Also known as the "with a wink and a nod" school of public announcements. > We only built one ha ha ha ha. > If one did a proper search they would discover they did not modify the > missiles. The Navy modified the system that controls the missiles so as to > hit a satellite rather than another missile. Reported to be at a cost of > 30 to 40 million dollars Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message > > 3) We will be sure to have a few modified missiles ready at all times for > > another such mission, but the Navy doesn't want anybody to believe this. > > Also known as the "with a wink and a nod" school of public announcements. > > We only built one ha ha ha ha. > If one did a proper search they would discover they did not modify the > missiles. The Navy modified the system that controls the missiles so as to > hit a satellite rather than another missile. Reported to be at a cost of > 30 to 40 million dollars Why does the US have an anti-missile system so primitive that its control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another missile? That would seem to make it rather ineffective against an attack consisting of both ballistic and FOBS missiles. FOBS has been the mainstay of Russia's ICBM force for a decade, and there's no reason North Korea and Iran wouldn't also favor FOBS because GPS makes it easy to implement, and FOBS was invented for evading missile defenses. Still asking questions I see. I'm sure if you did a search you could learn more about our capabilities, but I suspect most of what you want to know would be classified. LOL >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> > > Why does the US have an anti-missile system so primitive that its > control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another > missile? I didn't ask that question. You responded to the wrong person. If your wife's "tennis instructor" gets you so upset that you can't see straight, be a real man and throw her cheatin' a.s out of the house. > Still asking questions I see. I'm sure if you did a search you could > learn more about our capabilities, but I suspect most of what you want to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another >> missile? DUH! Whay makes you think anybody cares about you? My response was directed to the thread. >I didn't ask that question. You responded to the wrong person. >> Still asking questions I see. I'm sure if you did a search you could >> learn more about our capabilities, but I suspect most of what you want to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another >>> missile? > DUH! Whay makes you think anybody cares about you? My response was > directed to the thread. No, it wasn't. >>I didn't ask that question. You responded to the wrong person. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>> control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another >>>> missile? > I didn't ask that question. You responded to the wrong person. If your > wife's "tennis instructor" gets you so upset that you can't see straight, be > a real man and throw her cheatin' a.s out of the house. Naw, he likes to watch. "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote in message > > > 3) We will be sure to have a few modified missiles ready at all times for > > > another such mission, but the Navy doesn't want anybody to believe this. > > > Also known as the "with a wink and a nod" school of public announcements. > > > We only built one ha ha ha ha. > If one did a proper search they would discover they did not modify the > missiles. The Navy modified the system that controls the missiles so as to > hit a satellite rather than another missile. Reported to be at a cost of > 30 to 40 million dollars > > Why does the US have an anti-missile system so primitive that its > > control has to be reconfigured to hit a satellite rather than another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > reason North Korea and Iran wouldn't also favor FOBS because GPS makes > > it easy to implement, and FOBS was invented for evading missile defenses. > Still asking questions I see. Still not answering questions, I see. >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I think #3 most closely matches the stupidity of China asking us not to > snuff the satellite. Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it works. What are they afraid of? >>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > What are they afraid of? Losing their pride. >>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> > Losing their pride. Hmmmm..... >>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Hmmmm..... Does that sound odd to you? >>>> Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it >>>> works. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Does that sound odd to you? No, actually, that sounds like it might be spot-on. Just wondering if there is another motive besides that. Good call, though. >>>>> Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it >>>>> works. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Good call, though. It's exactly the reason why some smart person in Washington got Bush to shut his stupid cake hole about N. Korea, and let the Chinese handle their own neighborhood. The results were probably less imperfect than if we'd kept badgering NK. We have a long history of being completely disinterested in and oblivious to what makes some countries tick. >>>>>> Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it >>>>>> works. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > kept badgering NK. We have a long history of being completely > disinterested in and oblivious to what makes some countries tick. There you go again...defending the perps, e.g. the evil tyrants of NK. The is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING defensible about NK and its brutish leaders. >>>>>>> Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it >>>>>>> works. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > There you go again...defending the perps, e.g. the evil tyrants of NK. The > is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING defensible about NK and its brutish leaders. I said no such thing. Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is a far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL >>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Losing their pride. >>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> >> Losing their pride. > Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is > a far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL You don't understand what "losing their pride" refers to because your education ended too soon. But, because you're pathetic, I'll give you a clue: We backed off of N. Korea and let China play a bigger part because _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > education ended too soon. But, because you're pathetic, I'll give you a > clue: We backed off of N. Korea and let China play a bigger part because China will DEAL with NK with WHATEVER force it takes to solve any problems. The Chinese govt., being totalitarian in nature, doesn't worry about limp-wristed simps, like the LIEbrawls in this newsgroup, who worry about minor collateral damage. I can just imagine the hue and outcry from the LIEbrawls here if the U.S. actually DID intervene directly in NK. They would be falling all over themselves cursing their OWN govt. while falling into bed with the despots in NK. Just like how the LIEbrawls in the West weaken their OWN governments by attacking them while, effectively, aiding and abetting, the barbarians, insurgents, Taliban, etc in the Middle east. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > China will DEAL with NK with WHATEVER force it takes to solve any problems. > The Chinese govt., being totalitarian in nature, doesn't worry about > limp-wristed simps, like the LIEbrawls in this newsgroup, who worry about > minor collateral damage. Then China is the country for you. No wonder you're always criticizing the free (liberal) countries. China wants to be seen as a dignified, benevolent leader of the world and therefore will not deal as harshly with foreign countries as it does with its own dissidents, at least not while it's attempting to acquire wealth, allies, and power, which is what China's "50 years of peace and diplomacy" campaign is about. > Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is a > far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL It's also not a great achievement when the trajectory has been known for days in advance and there's only a single target. >> Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is a >> far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL > >It's also not a great achievement when the trajectory has been known >for days in advance and there's only a single target. Bull sh.t.... SignatureScott in Florida >> Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is a >> far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL > > It's also not a great achievement when the trajectory has been known > for days in advance and there's only a single target. Unfortunately you're quite correct. I have an acquaintance who actually designs optical satellites for civilian and military use. The man is brilliant and knows what he's talking about. Two days ago, we conversed about the shoot-down. He said it was all everyone wanted to talk about when seeing him (due to his expertise). What he told me was surprising. "Every major country of the world with current missile technology can do this. It's not a big deal. It's a known orbit, so calculating the proper trajectory isn't too difficult." IOW, it ain't shootin' down an incoming missile. Just a learning experience. >>> Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, >>> is a far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unfortunately you're quite correct. I have an acquaintance who actually > designs optical satellites for civilian and military use. Ask him if he's ever heard of Omega Optical in Vermont... >>>> Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, >>>> is a far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ask him if he's ever heard of Omega Optical in Vermont... I'll see him on Tuesday. You believe that because you assumed they fired an armed missile, they did not. They shot it with what was more akin to a "bullet." LOL >> Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is >> a >> far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL > > It's also not a great achievement when the trajectory has been known > for days in advance and there's only a single target. > Hitting a satellite, sitting in orbit over a fixed point of the earth, is a > far cry from hitting a fast moving missile or a falling satellite LOL The satellite that China destroyed was orbiting about 500 miles high, meaning it wasn't over a fixed point of Earth, unlike a geostationary satellite orbiting almost 23,000 high would be. >>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Losing their pride. Well, indeed, "face" and the losing of same is a very important concept in the East. >>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Well, indeed, "face" and the losing of same is a very important concept in > the East. And yet, a minute later, you posted an incoherent rant on the same subject. I'll start watching for this pattern vs time of day and provide you with data you can present to your doctor. Your meds need adjusting. > Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it works. > > What are they afraid of? A much more effective anti-satellite system, one that doesn't require knowing way ahead of time where the satellite will be or waiting for the satellite to come into the crosshairs rather than chasing after the satellite. IOW the Chinese would like something a lot more like the aircraft-launched system that the US had back in the 1980s. >> Too bad. They have their own anti-satellite missle system, and it works. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > satellite. IOW the Chinese would like something a lot more like the > aircraft-launched system that the US had back in the 1980s. Ach-so! Mission accomplished. Well, the conspiracy theorists will say it was 1.) a hoax, and 2.) filmed in a studio. > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/asia/spy.php > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who do they think they're talking to? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.