I hope that the jakarta-tomcat mailing list subscribers will agree to
discuss this very important topic in a more appropriate forum than a
mailing list devoted to technical questions about the Tomcat server. To
do otherwise diminishes the effectiveness of the mailing list, thereby
diminishing the productivity of those of us who use the mailing list.
Please, everyone, lets just drop this thread, or, at most, see one more
posting about the new home for discussion of this subject.
"Galon, Mary-Jay" wrote:
>
> AGREE. THIS MAILING LIST IS INTENDED FOR TOMCAT RELATED DISCUSSIONS
> ONLY!!!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geofferey G Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
>
> These stupid guys should be kicked out from here, stop talking about CHINA!
>
> "Patil, Anand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/30/2001 09:22:43 AM
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> cc: (bcc: Geofferey G Chen/Corporate/Allianz Canada
> Inc.)
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: Boycott China - please read - your life may
> depend on it
>
>
> Fax to:
>
> Wrong.That depends what you define as politics.
> Politics is something which you don't always understand
> first time or may be forever.
> Annd
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Poon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:04 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arnaud Dostes - NTI
> > Subject: Re: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
> >
> > I don't think this list is the place to talk about politic!Right?
> >
> >
> > Dick Poon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Arnaud Dostes - NTI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
> >
> >
> > > The Tomcat-Mailing list is the last list where I thought I would find
> > > hateful opinions and so poorly directed propaganda.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rick Horowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Horowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:21 AM
> > > Subject: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hello Everyone,
> > > >
> > > > The following speech, reprinted from www.newsmax.com, was made this
> > > Tuesday
> > > > night by U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California. I urge you
> > all
> > > to
> > > > read every word of this speech. I have been aware of much of the
> > budding
> > > > catastrophe we face regarding China, yet have not seen the issues
> > > > articulated with anything near the clarity that Mr. Rohrabacher does
> > in
> > > > this speech.
> > > >
> > > > My wife and I began boycotting Chinese-made goods about a year ago in
> > > > recognition of the reasons outlined here. I urge every one of you to
> > > > forward this message to everyone in your email list, and begin
> > boycotting
> > > > Chinese goods immediately.
> > > >
> > > > My own brief summary of the issues:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Our extreme trade deficit vs. China (nearly $100B per year now) has
> > > been
> > > > used for a massive military buildup, with the U.S. as the ultimate
> > target.
> > > > 2. Russia is selling their most advanced arms to China, capable of
> > > > destroying our aircraft carriers, including a supersonic torpedo
> > > technology
> > > > that is far beyond anything that we have and for which we have no
> > defense.
> > > > 3. Our leading defense contractors, including Loral, Boeing, Hughes,
> > > > Motorola, and others have sold advanced military technology to China
> > over
> > > > the past few years, including technology that now enables Chinese
> > > > nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles to accurately hit
> > > > American cities, something they were not able to do prior to this
> > transfer
> > > > of technology.
> > > > 4. The majority of the "partner" companies of U.S. ventures in China
> > are
> > > in
> > > > fact owned and operated by the PLA (the People's Liberation Army - the
> > > > Chinese army). These are not commercial interests.
> > > > 5. The U.S. government (read you and I) have been providing tax breaks
> > to
> > > > American companies to close up factories in the U.S. and reopen them
> > in
> > > > China. These factories transfer advanced technology in many cases, put
> > > > Americans out of work, and provide cash to the Chinese to further
> > their
> > > > military expansion.
> > > >
> > > > I hope these points and the following reprinted speech make you think
> > long
> > > > and hard about our position regarding China, and that you:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Start boycotting Chinese-made goods immediately
> > > > 2. Send this message to everyone on your email list. Please don't be
> > > > embarrassed to take a stand on this. I assure you, it is not my
> > > imagination
> > > > that China poses a significant threat to our safety and future, and we
> > are
> > > > giving them the money, technology, and weaponry to carry out their
> > many
> > > > threats already made against our country.
> > > >
> > > > Here's one informational link...I'm sure you can find may others
> > yourself.
> > > >
> > > > PLEASE read Mr. Rohrabacher's speech, below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/chinamissiles_990409.html
> > > > ....includes, "A Chinese official hinted at launching a nuclear weapon
> > > > at Los Angeles in 1996, when U.S. warships confronted
> > > > China over missile firings near Taiwan."
> > > >
> > > > Make no mistake about it. The Chinese government is a dictatorship,
> > and
> > is
> > > > very dangerous.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Rick Horowitz
> > > >
> > > > Rohrabacher Slams U.S. Aid to China
> > > >
> > > > Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
> > > > Thursday, April 26, 2001
> > > >
> > > > Editor's note: This is the text of a speech on the House floor by
> > > > U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., Tuesday night.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Speaker, one month ago, the Communist regime that controls
> > > > the mainland of China attacked an American surveillance aircraft
> > > > while it was in international waters. After being knocked out of the
> > > > sky, 24 American military personnel, the crew of the surveillance
> > > > craft, were held hostage for nearly 2 weeks. The Communist
> > > > Chinese blamed us and would not return the crew until the United
> > > > States was humiliated before the world.
> > > >
> > > > Wake up, America. What is going on here? Large financial interests
> > > > in our country whose only goal is exploiting the cheap, near-slave
> > > > labor of China have been leading our country down the path to
> > > > catastrophe. How much more proof do we need that the so-called
> > > > engagement theory is a total failure?
> > > >
> > > > Our massive investment in China, pushed and promoted by
> > > > American billionaires and multinational corporations, has created
> > > > not a more peaceful, democratic China, but an aggressive
> > > > nuclear-armed bully that now threatens the world with its hostile acts
> > > > and proliferation. Do the Communist Chinese have to murder
> > > > American personnel or attack the United States or our allies with
> > > > their missiles before those who blithesomely pontificate about the
> > > > civilizing benefits of building the Chinese economy will admit that
> > > > China for a decade has been going in the opposite direction than
> > > > predicted by the so-called ``free traders.''
> > > >
> > > > 'We Have Made a Monstrous Mistake'
> > > >
> > > > We have made a monstrous mistake, and if we do not face reality
> > > > and change our fundamental policies, instead of peace, there will be
> > > > conflict. Instead of democratic reform, we will see a further
> > > > retrenchment of a regime that is run by gangsters and thugs, the
> > > > world's worst human rights abusers.
> > > >
> > > > Let us go back to basics. The mainland of China is controlled by a
> > > > rigid, Stalinistic Communist party. The regime is committing
> > > > genocide in Tibet. It is holding as a captive the designated
> > > > successor of the Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual leader of the
> > > > Tibetan people. By the way, this person, the designated new leader,
> > > > is a little boy. They are holding hostage a little boy in order to
> > > > terrorize the Tibetan people. The regime is now, at this moment,
> > > > arresting thousands of members of the Falun Gong, which is nothing
> > > > more threatening than a meditation and yoga society. Christians of
> > > > all denominations are being brutalized unless they register with the
> > > > state and attend controlled churches. Just in the last few days, there
> > > > has been a round-up of Catholics who were practicing their faith
> > > > outside of state control. Now they are in a Chinese prison.
> > > >
> > > > There are no opposition parties in China. There is no free press in
> > > > China. China is not a free society under anyone's definition. More
> > > > importantly, it is not a society that is evolving toward freedom.
> > > >
> > > > President Richard Nixon first established our ties with the
> > > > Communist Chinese in 1972 at the height of the Cold War. That was
> > > > a brilliant move. At that particular moment, it was a brilliant move.
> > It
> > > > enabled us to play the power of one dictatorship off the power of
> > > > another dictatorship. We played one against the other at a time
> > > > when we had been weakened by the Vietnam War and at a time
> > > > when Soviet Russia was on the offensive.
> > > >
> > > > During the Reagan years, we dramatically expanded our ties to
> > > > China, but do not miss the essential fact that justified that
> > > > relationship and made it different than what has been going on
> > > > these last 10 years. China was at that time, during the Reagan
> > > > administration, evolving toward a freer, more open society, a
> > > > growing democratic movement was evident, and the United States,
> > > > our government and our people, fostered this movement. Under
> > > > President Reagan, we brought tens of thousands of students here,
> > > > and we sent teams from our National Endowment for Democracy
> > > > there. We were working with them to build a more democratic
> > > > society, and it looked like that was what was going to happen. All of
> > > > this ended, of course, in Tiananmen Square over 10 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > 'Tanks to Wipe Out the Opposition'
> > > >
> > > > Thousands of Chinese gathered there in Tiananmen Square in
> > > > Beijing to demand a more open and democratic government. For a
> > > > moment, it appeared like there had been an historic breakthrough.
> > > > Then, from out of the darkness came battle-hardened troops and
> > > > tanks to wipe out the opposition. The people who ordered that
> > > > attack are still holding the reins of power in China today and, like
> > all
> > > > other criminals who get away with scurrilous deeds, they have
> > > > become emboldened and arrogant.
> > > >
> > > > My only lament is that had Ronald Reagan been president during
> > > > that time of Tiananmen Square, things, I think, would have been
> > > > different; but he was not. Since that turn of events about 12 years
> > > > ago, things have been progressively worse. The repression is more
> > > > evident than ever. The belligerence and hostility of Beijing is even
> > > > more open. Underscoring the insanity of it all, the Communist
> > > > Chinese have been using their huge trade surplus with the United
> > > > States to upgrade their military and expand its warfighting
> > > > capabilities.
> > > >
> > > > Communist China's arsenal of jets, its ballistic missiles, its naval
> > > > forces have all been modernized and reinforced. In the last 2 years,
> > > > they have purchased destroyers from the former Soviet Union.
> > > > These destroyers are armed with Sunburn missiles. These were
> > > > systems that were designed during the Cold War by the Russians to
> > > > destroy American aircraft carriers.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the Communist Chinese are arming themselves to sink
> > > > American aircraft carriers, to kill thousands upon thousands of
> > > > American sailors. Make no mistake about it, China's military might
> > > > now threatens America and world peace. If there is a crisis in that
> > > > part of the world again, which there will be, we can predict that some
> > > > day, unlike the last crisis when American aircraft carriers were able
> > > > to become a peaceful element to bring moderation of judgment
> > > > among the players who were in conflict, instead, American aircraft
> > > > carriers will find themselves vulnerable, and an American President
> > > > will have to face the choice of risking the lives of all of those
> > sailors
> > > > on those aircraft carriers.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that a relatively poor country can
> > afford
> > > > to enlarge its military in such a way, to the point that it can
> > threaten
> > a
> > > > superpower such as the United States of America?
> > > >
> > > > Even as China's slide into tyranny and militarism continued in these
> > > > last 12 years, the United States government has permitted a totally
> > > > indefensible economic rules of engagement to guide our
> > > > commercial ties with the mainland of China.
> > > >
> > > > While China was going in the right direction, permitting that country
> > > > to have a large trade advantage and thus providing a large reserve
> > > > of hard currency may or may not have made sense, as long as
> > > > China was going in the right direction and going towards
> > > > democracy. Maybe we would like to build up a freer China that way.
> > > >
> > > > It 'Makes No Sense' to Help Arm China
> > > >
> > > > But it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, for the United
> > > > States to permit a country that is sinking even deeper into tyranny
> > > > and into anti-Western hostility to have a huge trade surplus as a
> > > > resource to call upon to meet their military needs.
> > > >
> > > > In effect, the Communist Chinese have been using the tens of
> > > > billions of dollars of trade surplus with the United States each year
> > to
> > > > build their military power and military might so some day the
> > > > Communist Chinese might be able to kill millions of our people, or at
> > > > least to threaten us to do that in order to back us down into defeat
> > > > without ever coming to a fight.
> > > >
> > > > We have essentially been arming and equipping our worst potential
> > > > enemy and financing our own destruction. How could we let such a
> > > > crime against the security of our country happen? Well, it was
> > > > argued by some very sincere people that free trade would bring
> > > > positive change to China, and that engagement would civilize the
> > > > Communist regime.
> > > >
> > > > Even as evidence stacked upon more evidence indicated that
> > > > China was not liberalizing, that just the opposite was happening, the
> > > > barkers for open markets kept singing their song:
> > > > ``Most-favored-nation status, just give us this and things will get
> > > > better.'' It was nonsense then and it is nonsense today. But after all
> > > > that has happened, one would think that the shame factor would
> > > > silence these eternal optimists.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I am a bit sensitive because, first and foremost, let me
> > > > state unequivocally that I consider myself a free trader. Yes, I
> > believe
> > > > in free trade between free people. What we should strive for is to
> > > > have more and more open trade with all free and democratic
> > > > countries, or countries that are heading in the right direction.
> > > >
> > > > I am thus positively inclined towards President Bush's efforts to
> > > > establish a free trade zone among the democratic countries in this
> > > > hemisphere. I will read the fine print, but my inclination is to
> > > facilitate
> > > > trade between democracies.
> > > >
> > > > When I say, ``I will read the fine print,'' I will be especially
> > concerned
> > > > with a free trade agreement, and I will be looking to that free trade
> > > > agreement to make sure that we have protection that our sensitive
> > > > technologies, which can be used for military purposes, will not be
> > > > transferred from the countries in our hemisphere, democratic
> > > > countries in our hemisphere, to China or to any other countries that
> > > > are potential enemies of the United States. This will have to be in
> > > > that free trade agreement.
> > > >
> > > > There will have to be protections against the transfer of our
> > > > technology to our enemies. This is more of a concern following new
> > > > science and technology agreements that were signed by China and
> > > > countries like Brazil and Venezuela recently. Dictatorships are
> > > > always going to try to gain in any agreement that they have with us,
> > > > and they are always going to try to manipulate other agreements
> > > > and the rules of the game so they can stay in power.
> > > >
> > > > When one applies the rules of free trade to a controlled society, as
> > > > we have been told over and over again, more trade, and let us have
> > > > free trade with China, that is going to make them more dependent
> > > > on us and they will be freer and more prosperous, more likely to be
> > > > peaceful people, well, if we apply the rules of free trade to a
> > > > dictatorship, ultimately what happens is that it is only free trade in
> > > > one direction.
> > > >
> > > > On one end we have free people, a democratic people who are not
> > > > controlled by their government, and thus are basically unregulated
> > > > and are moving forward for their own benefit. But on the other end,
> > > > the trade will be controlled and manipulated to ensure that the
> > > > current establishment of that country stays in power.
> > > >
> > > > Never has that been more evident than in America's dealing with
> > > > Communist China. In this case, it is so very blatant.
> > > >
> > > > Those advocating most-favored-nation status, or as it is called now,
> > > > normal trade relations, have always based their case on the boon to
> > > > our country represented by the sale of American goods to ``the
> > > > world's largest market.'' That is their argument. Here on this floor
> > > > over and over and over again we heard people say, ``We have to
> > > > have these normal trade relations because we have to sell our
> > > > products, the products made by the American people, to the world's
> > > > largest market.''
> > > >
> > > > This Is Free Trade?
> > > >
> > > > That is a great pitch. The only problem is, it is not true. The sale
> > of
> > > > U.S.-produced vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, autos, you name the
> > > > commercial item, are almost a non-factor in the trade relationship
> > > > between our countries. They are a minuscule amount of what is
> > > > considered the trade analysis of these two countries.
> > > >
> > > > During these many years that we have given China
> > > > most-favored-nation status or normal trade relations, the power elite
> > > > there never lowered China's tariffs, and in fact increased the tariffs
> > > > in some areas, and erected barriers to prevent the sale of all but a
> > > > few U.S.-made products.
> > > >
> > > > So while we had low tariffs, and intentionally brought our tariffs
> > down
> > > > by most-favored-nation, for over a decade, even as China was
> > > > slipping more into tyranny, they were permitted to have high tariffs
> > > > and block our goods from coming in.
> > > >
> > > > Beijing would not permit its own people to buy American-made
> > > > consumer items. They were not looking for a trade relationship with
> > > > the United States for their people to be able to buy American
> > > > products. That is not what they were looking for. That is not what it
> > > > was all about. They knew it, but yet our people were told over and
> > > > over and over and over and over again, ``Oh, we have to have
> > > > most-favored-nation status and normal trade relations in order to sell
> > > > American products to the world's largest market.''
> > > >
> > > > That is not what was going on. It is not what the reality was.
> > Instead,
> > > > the Communist Chinese were out to get American money, lots of it,
> > > > and American money to build factories, and they wanted the
> > > > Americans to build the factories with our technology and our money
> > > > in their country.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, many of the factories that were built there were not built
> > > > in order to sell products to the Chinese people. Those factories
> > > > were built to export products to the United States.
> > > >
> > > > The system that developed with the acquiescence of our
> > > > government, and this is no secret, what I am talking about tonight is
> > > > no secret to anyone except to the American people, our government
> > > > acquiesced to this for years, this policy put the American people, the
> > > > American working people, on the losing end of the transformational
> > > > action in the long run and sometimes even in the medium run.
> > > >
> > > > The Chinese, because of our low tariffs, flooded our market with
> > > > their products, and blocked our goods from entering China, and all
> > > > the while we were hearing over and over again, ``We must have
> > > > most-favored-nation status in order to sell American products in the
> > > > world's largest market.''
> > > >
> > > > They droned on year after year that most-favored-nation status was
> > > > so important to selling our products in the world's largest market. I
> > > > will just repeat that four or five times, because we must have heard
> > it
> > > > a thousand times on this floor, and every time said, I am sure, in
> > > > complete sincerity by the people who were expressing it, but were
> > > > totally wrong. A very quick look into the statistics could have
> > > > indicated that.
> > > >
> > > > Taiwan a Better Customer
> > > >
> > > > By the way, just to let members know, the people of Taiwan,
> > > > numbering 22 million people, buy more from us annually than the 1.2
> > > > Chinese on the mainland. The Taiwanese, with 22 million people,
> > > > buy more consumer products from us than do 1.2 billion Chinese in
> > > > the mainland.
> > > >
> > > > What has happened? What has happened as a result of these
> > > > nonsensical counterproductive policies, anti-American policies to
> > > > some degree, even though our own government has acquiesced in
> > > > them? It has resulted in a decline in domestic manufacturing
> > > > facilities in the United States. In other words, we have been closing
> > > > down our factories and putting our people out of work.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, that does not mean the company is put out of business.
> > > > Those factories spring up someplace else. There is this flood of
> > > > Chinese products, the factory closes down, and guess where it
> > > > reopens? It reopens, yes, in Communist China, using our modern
> > > > technology and our capital, which is what the Chinese want to have
> > > > invested in their country.
> > > >
> > > > Taxing Americans to Help Communism
> > > >
> > > > Adding insult to injury, our working people, some of them, whose
> > > > jobs are being threatened by imports, our working people are being
> > > > taxed in order to provide taxpayer-subsidized loans and loan
> > > > guarantees for those corporate leaders wishing to close down their
> > > > operations in the United States and set up on the mainland of China.
> > > >
> > > > Even if China was a free country, that would not be a good idea. I do
> > > > not believe we should be doing that even for democratic countries.
> > > > But for us to do that to a Communist dictatorship or any kind of
> > > > dictatorship, to have the American taxpayer subsidize these
> > > > investments, taking the risks on the shoulders of the American
> > > > taxpayer in order to build the economy of a vicious dictatorship, this
> > > > is insane. This is an insane policy. This is not free trade between
> > > > free people. It has nothing to do with free trade. It is subsidized
> > trade
> > > > with subjugated people.
> > > >
> > > > Companies that were permitted to sell their product to the Chinese
> > > > in these last 10 years, and there have been a few, companies like
> > > > Boeing who have attempted to sell airplanes to China, have found
> > > > themselves in a very bad predicament. As part of the deal enabling
> > > > them to sell planes now to Communist China, they have had to set
> > > > up manufacturing facilities in China to build the parts, or at least
> > > > some of the parts for the airplane.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, over a period of time, what the Chinese have managed to do
> > > > is to have the United States just build factories and pay for them.
> > Or,
> > > > as part of an agreement to sell the airplane, we have set up an
> > > > aerospace industry in China that will compete with our own
> > > > aerospace industry.
> > > >
> > > > I come from California. I come from a district in which aerospace is
> > > > a mighty important part of our economy. I just want to thank all the
> > > > people who have permitted this policy, this blackmail of American
> > > > companies, to go on under the name, under the guise of free trade.
> > > > It is going to sell out our own national interest 10 years down the
> > > > road when these people will have a modern aerospace industry
> > > > building weapons and being able to undercut our own people. Gee,
> > > > thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Making matters worse, many of the so-called companies in China
> > > > that are partnering with American industrialists, and American
> > > > industrialists, when they are going to build in China, are often
> > > > required to have a Chinese company as their partner as a
> > > > prerequisite to them investing in China, in short order these
> > > > so-called partners end up taking over the company. So many of
> > > > American companies have been there and have been burned.
> > > >
> > > > Guess what, we look at these private Chinese companies that were
> > > > partners with our American firms, we look at them, and what do we
> > > > find out? They are not private companies at all. Many of them are
> > > > subsidiaries of the People's Liberation Army. That is right, the
> > > > Communist Chinese army owns these companies. These are
> > > > nothing more than military people in civilian clothing. Their profits
> > > > end up paying for weapons targeting America, and we are paying
> > > > them to build the companies that make those profits.
> > > >
> > > > 'Alarming Betrayal of American Security'
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the most alarming betrayal of American national security
> > > > interests surfaced about 5 years ago when some of America's
> > > > biggest aerospace firms went into China hoping to use Chinese
> > > > rockets to launch American satellites. They were trying to make a
> > > > fast buck. It did not cost them a lot more to launch satellites here.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the Chinese were insisting that any satellites we put up for them
> > > > be put up on their rockets. I personally thought that, as long as we
> > > > made sure there was no technology transfer, that was an okay
> > > > policy. As long as we just launched our American satellite which
> > > > helped them set up a telephone system or something in China, that
> > > > is fine if they never got ahold of it, and that would be okay.
> > > >
> > > > I was guaranteed, along with the other Members of this body, there
> > > > would be incredible safeguards. The last administration briefed us
> > > > on the safeguards. Then as soon as we approved of letting these
> > > > satellite deals go through and our satellites be launched on Chinese
> > > > rockets, the administration trash canned all of the safeguards. I do
> > > > not understand it. I do not understand why people did this.
> > > >
> > > > But when all was said and done, the Communist Chinese rocket
> > > > arsenal was filled with more reliable and more capable rockets,
> > > > thanks to Loral, Hughes and other aerospace firms. Communist
> > > > Chinese rockets, which were a joke 10 years ago, when Bill Clinton
> > > > became President of the United States, they were a joke, one out of
> > > > 10 failed, exploded before they could get into space. Today they are
> > > > dramatically more likely to hit their targets, and they even carry
> > > > multiple warheads. Where before they had one warhead and nine
> > > > out of 10 would explode, now about 9 out of 10 get to their target,
> > > > and some of them are carrying multiple warheads.
> > > >
> > > > The Cox Report
> > > >
> > > > The Cox report detailed this travesty. We should not forget the Cox
> > > > report. Unfortunately, there has been innuendo after innuendo as if
> > > > the Cox report has in some way been proven wrong. There are no
> > > > reports that indicate that what the gentleman from California (Mr.
> > > > COX) and his task force proved has in some way been discredited.
> > > > In fact, there was a transfer of technology to the Communist Chinese
> > > > that did great damage to our national security and put millions of
> > > > American lives at risk that did not have to be put at risk.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, even with all this staring Congress in the face, we have
> > > > continued to give Most Favored Nations status to China and even
> > > > now vote to make them part of the World Trade Organization. Why?
> > > > One explanation, well just bad theory. Expanding trade, of course,
> > > > they believe will make things better. But expanding trade did not
> > > > make things better. Expanding trade with a dictatorship, as I have
> > > > mentioned, just expands the power base and solidifies the bad guys
> > > > in power.
> > > >
> > > > Of course the other explanation of why all this is going on, why we
> > > > end up seeing our national security trashed is pure greed on some
> > > > individuals' parts.
> > > >
> > > > Our businessmen have been
--
Joe Rank
Internet Applications Developer
Trapdoor Net Systems
office: 512-328-0932
fax : 512-328-2062
