Hello Huang, it doesn't matter where you are or where you came from ! This is another user-group for other problems, so PLEASE DON'T SENT THOSE MESSAGES TO HERE ! I think here is enough traffic over the day ! And i thnik that's the reason for lots of different news-groups. in this way, Michael "Huang, Lou" wrote: > Hi All real friend of Chinese people: > > As a Chinese, I really like the idea of boycott China. This idea is benifit > to both Chinese people and American people; of course not China, American > government and billionaries. > > Benifits to China: > In China, almost all of the companies are state owned. Every body knows > that as a state owned company, its competitive ability, efficiency is very > very low. It is much much much worse than American's senator's district pig > projects. > > Now in China, every corner is occupied by multi international companies like > Motorola, Microsoft, > IBM, etc. These companies can do whatever they want; they can kill small > private companies mercilessly; they rob China's natural resources and make > China's environment worse and worse. > > If every one can boycott China at least 10 years, then China will: > > 1) The small private companies will grow up gradually and eventually replace > all the high cost, low efficiency state owned companies. If the world would > isolate China only 10 years, China will have his own giant private > companies, ie., China will have his own Motorola, etc. At that time, the > compitition will be equal. American giant companies don't have too much > advantages and they can not do everything they want like they are doing now. > > 2) The Chinese people will enjoy cheap products because they don't need to > compete with American consumers. > > 3) China's natural resource will last longer. > > 4) China's environment will be cleaner. > > The benifits to American people: > > 1) Increase the employment opportunities because the giant companies can not > move factories to China. > > 2) A little bit higher consumer good price is OK because 98% Americans are > millionare. > > 3) Prevent American from other place's political unrest. Because giant > companies will utilize and explore American's natural resource like oil, US > will not depend on foreign energy supply. > > 4) A little bit environmental worse is OK because American's environment is > the cleanest in the world. At most the American's environment becomes the > second cleanest. > > I really hope that Boycott China is reality! > > It does not matter that Boycott China will success or fail (many things are > controlled by greedy multi internal firms, not by our good hearts), I > sincerely appreciate the idea and thanks from my heart those people who > propose boycott China. Because these people are the real friends of Chinses > people, not those multi national firms. > > L. Huang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Anand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:23 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it > > 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 blinded, not by the dream of selling > > > > U.S.-made products to China as they would have you believe in the > > > > debates here on the floor of the House, but rather blinded by the > > > > vision of using virtually slave labor for quick profits on the > > mainland > > > > of China. > > > > > > > > With little or no competition, no negotiators, no lawyers, no > > > > environmental restrictions, no unions, no public consent, it sounds > > > > like a businessman's dream to me. Yes, it is a businessman's > > > > dream if you just blot out the picture of a grinding tyranny and the > > > > human rights abuses that are going on and the horrible threat to the > > > > United States of America that is emerging because of the things > > > > that are going on and the things that are being done. > > > > > > > > Because you are a businessman, because you are engaged in > > > > making a profit as we are free to do in the United States does not > > > > exempt you from being a patriot or being loyal to the security > > > > interests of the United States of America. > > > > > > > > Today's American overseas businessman quite often is a far cry > > > > from the Yankee clipper captains of days gone by. In those days, our > > > > Yankee clipper ships sailed the ocean, cut through those seas, the > > > > Seven Seas. They were full going over, and they were full coming > > > > back. They waived our flag. Our flag was flying from those clipper > > > > ships, and our flag stood for freedom and justice. Those Yankee > > > > clipper captains and those business entrepreneurs were proud to > > > > be Americans. > > > > > > > > Today, America's tycoons often see nationalism, read that loyalty to > > > > the United States, as an antiquated notion. They are players in the > > > > global economy now, they feel. Patriotism they believe is old think. > > > > > > > > Well, we cannot rely on the decisions of people like this to > > > > determine what the interests of the United States of America is to > > > > be. Yet, the influence of these billionaires and these tycoons, these > > > > people who would be willing to invest in a dictatorship or a > > > > democracy, they could care less which one, they do not care if there > > > > is blood dripping off the hand that hands them the dollar bills, those > > > > individuals influence our government. Their influence on this elected > > > > body is monumental, if not insurmountable at times. > > > > > > > > 'People Must Be Free' > > > > > > > > I believe in capitalism. I am a capitalist. I am someone who believes > > > > in the free enterprise system, make no mistake about it. But free is > > > > the ultimate word. People must be free to be involved in enterprise. > > > > We must respect the basic tenets of liberty and justice that have > > > > provided us a country in which people are free to uplift themselves > > > > through hard work and through enterprise. > > > > > > > > Today, more often than not, we are talking about how people are > > > > trying to find out ways of manipulating government on how to make a > > > > profit, not how to build a better product that will enrich everyone's > > life > > > > and make a profit by doing that, which is the essence of the free > > > > enterprise system. > > > > > > > > More and more people are not even looking again to this great > > > > country and considering this great country for the role that it is > > > > playing in this world and how important it is and how we should > > > > never sacrifice the security of this country. Because if this country > > > > falls, the hope for freedom and justice everywhere in the world falls. > > > > No, instead they have put their baskets, not in the United States of > > > > America, put their eggs in the basket of globalism. Well, globalism > > > > will not work without democratic reform. > > > > > > > > China will corrupt the WTO, the World Trade Organization, just as it > > > > has corrupted the election processes in the United States of > > > > America. You can see it now 20 years from now, maybe 10 years > > > > from now, the panels of the WTO, you know, made up of countries > > > > from all over the world, Latin America, Africa, Middle East. There > > > > are members of those panels making these decisions, they will not > > > > have ever been elected by anybody, much less the people of the > > > > United States of America, yet we will be expected to follow their > > > > dictates. Communist China, they will pay those people off in a > > > > heartbeat. Why not? They did it to our people. > > > > > > > > The Clinton-Gore Scandals > > > > > > > > Remember the campaign contributions given to Vice President > > > > Gore at the Buddhist Temple? Remember the money delivered to > > > > the Clinton's by Johnny Chung? Where did that money come from? > > > > We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where did it > > > > come from? It originated with Chinese military officers. > > > > > > > > These military officers were wearing civilian clothes. They were top > > > > officers in that part of the People's Liberation Army that produces > > > > missiles. That is where the money came from, all this while our most > > > > deadly missile technology was being transferred to Communist > > > > China. One wonders why the Communist Chinese leaders are > > > > arrogant and think that American leaders are cowards and corrupt > > > > when we let this happen. > > > > > > > > Our country has, in short, had a disastrously counterproductive > > > > policy. We have, over the last 10 years, built our worst potential > > > > enemy from a weak, introverted power into a powerful economic > > > > military force, a force that is looking to dominate all of Asia. When > > I > > > > say worst potential enemy, that is not just my assessment. That is > > > > what the Communist Chinese leaders themselves believe and are > > > > planning for. > > > > > > > > Why do you think Communist Chinese boss Jiang Zemin recently > > > > visited Cuba? He was in Cuba with Fidel Castro who hates our guts > > > > when he released the hostages, the American military personnel > > > > that he was holding hostage. What do you think that was all about? > > > > He was telling the whole world we are standing up to the United > > > > States of America, and they are our enemy. He was involved with an > > > > activity that was declaring to the world his hostility towards the > > > > United States. > > > > > > > > Why, when you have a country like this who are professing hostility > > > > to the United States and doing such as this, why are we permitting > > > > them to buy up ports that will effectively give them control of the > > > > Panama Canal, which is what they did a year and a half ago. > > > > > > > > Giving China the Panama Canal > > > > > > > > The Panama Canal, the last administration let the Chinese, the > > > > Communist Chinese, through bribery, tremendously expand its > > > > power in Panama and, through bribery, let it get control of the port > > > > facilities at both ends of the Panama Canal. Why would we let such > > > > a thing happen? > > > > > > > > In many ways, we are repeating history. In the 1920s, Japanese > > > > militarists wiped out Japan's fledgling democratic movement. That it > > > > did. In doing so, it set a course for Japan. Japan then was a racist > > > > power which believed it, too, had a right to dominate Asia. > > > > Japanese militarists also knew that only the United States of > > > > America stood in their way. This is deja vu all over again as Yogi > > > > Berra once said. > > > > > > > > The Communist Chinese, too, are militarists who seek to dominate > > > > Asia. They think they are racially superior to everyone. They are > > > > unlike their Japanese predecessors, however, willing to go slow, > > > > and they have been going slow. But make no mistake about it, they > > > > intend to dominate Asia, all of it. And even know, their maps claim > > > > Siberia, Mongolia and huge chunks of the South China Sea. > > > > > > > > The confrontation with our surveillance plane must be reviewed in > > > > this perspective if the damage to the United States and the > > > > imprudence and arrogance on the part of the communist Chinese > > > > are to be understood. > > > > > > > > China's claim on the South China Sea includes the Spratley Islands. > > > > I have a map of the South China Sea with me tonight. Hainan Island. > > > > Our airplane was intercepted, knocked out of the sky somewhere in > > > > here. But what we are not told about and what the media is not > > > > focusing on and no one has been talking about is this plane was > > > > precisely in the waters between Hainan Island and the Spratley > > > > Islands. > > > > > > > > For those who do not know what the Spratley Islands are, they are > > > > just a series of reefs that are under water at high tide and at low > > tide > > > > above water. They are just a short distance, as you can see, this is > > > > here, this is the Philippines; and right about 100 miles offshore, the > > > > Spratley Islands. Yet they are several hundred miles from China. Yet > > > > the Chinese are trying to claim these islands. That is what this was > > > > all about. Not only are these islands, the Spratley Islands, the home > > > > of natural gas and oil deposits, but they are also in a strategic > > > > location. The Spratly Islands, having them in China's power, having > > > > them being recognized as part of China, would, of course, be a > > > > disaster to the Philippines whose oil and gas that belongs to, but > > > > also it would give the Communist Chinese sovereignty rights which > > > > would permit them to bracket the South China Sea. China, Hainan > > > > Island, the Spratlys would bracket the South China Sea, from this > > > > land point to this land point. Thus, we have a situation where when > > > > China claims, which it does, a 200-mile zone, that would leave > > > > China with a stranglehold on the South China Sea which is one of > > > > the most important commercial areas on this planet. It would have a > > > > stranglehold on Japan and Korea. > > > > > > > > What do you think our friends in the Persian Gulf, for example, would > > > > think about it if they understood that this was a power play, that > > what > > > > we had with the surveillance aircraft was a power play? The reason > > > > why the Communist Chinese were demanding an apology then, they > > > > were demanding an apology because supposedly we were in their > > > > airspace. If we apologized, that was a recognition of their > > > > sovereignty in bracketing with the Spratly Islands on one side and > > > > Hainan Island on the other side, bracketing the South China Sea. If > > > > we ended up apologizing to the Communist regime, it would have > > > > been taken as a legal recognition, a small one, of their sovereignty > > > > and their 200-mile limit. That is what this was all about. That is why > > > > they were playing hardball with us. > > > > > > > > The American people and our allies are not being told that that is > > > > what the stakes were. This is a long-term effort on the part of the > > > > Communist Chinese to dominate the South China Sea and expand > > > > their power so they could call it maybe the Communist China Sea > > > > rather than the South China Sea. It behooves us to face these facts. > > > > That is what it was all about. That is why they wanted an apology and > > > > that is why they should not have gotten an apology. > > > > > > > > I applaud this administration for wording its letter in a way that was > > > > not and could not in any way be interpreted as a recognition of the > > > > Chinese sovereignty over that airspace. An accommodationist > > > > policy toward Communist China, ignoring this type of aggression, > > > > ignoring human rights and democracy concerns while stressing > > > > expanded trade, and even through all this you have a bunch of > > > > people saying, ``Oh, isn't it lucky we have trade relations or we > > > > would really be in trouble with the Communist Chinese.'' Give me a > > > > break. But ignoring those other elements and just stressing trade as > > > > part of a so-called engagement theory has not worked. > > > > > > > > The regime in China is more powerful, more belligerent to the > > > > United States and more repressive than ever before. President > > > > Bush's decision in the wake of this incident at Hainan Island to sell > > > > an arms package to Taiwan including destroyers, submarines and > > > > an antiaircraft upgrade was good. At least it shows more moxie than > > > > what the last administration did. > > > > > > > > I would have preferred to see the Aegis system be provided to our > > > > Taiwanese friends. But at least we have gone forward with a > > > > respectable arms deal that will help Taiwan defend itself and thus > > > > deter military action in that area. > > > > > > > > Cancel 'All U.S. Military Exchanges' With China > > > > > > > > But after the Hainan Island incident, the very least we should be > > > > doing is canceling all U.S. military exchanges with Communist > > > > China. I mean, I do not know if they are still delivering us those > > > > berets or not, but that is just ridiculous to think that we are > > getting > > > our > > > > military berets from Communist China. We should cancel all military > > > > exchanges. > > > > > > > > The American people should be put on alert that they are in danger > > > > if they travel to the mainland of China. And we should quit using our > > > > tax dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the IMF and the World > > > > Bank to subsidize big business when they want to build a factory in > > > > China or in any other dictatorship. > > > > > > > > Why are we helping Vietnam and China? Why are we helping those > > > > dictatorships when nearby people, the people of the Philippines, > > > > whom I just mentioned, who are on the front line against this > > > > Communist aggression, who China is trying to flood drugs into their > > > > country. The Chinese army itself is involved in the drug trade going > > > > into the Philippines. > > > > > > > > The Philippines are struggling to have a democracy. They have just > > > > had to remove a president who is being bribed. Bribed by whom? > > > > Bribed by organized crime figures from the mainland of China. > > > > When those people in the Philippines are struggling, why are we not > > > > trying to help them? > > > > > > > > Let us not encourage American businesses to go to Vietnam or to > > > > Communist China, when you have got people right close by who are > > > > struggling to have a democratic government and love the United > > > > States of America. The people of the Philippines are strong and > > > > they love their freedom and their liberty, but they feel like they > > have > > > > been abandoned by the United States. And when we help factories > > > > to be set up in China rather than sending work to the Philippines, > > > > and they do not even have the money to buy the weapons to defend > > > > themselves in the Philippines. That is why it is important for us to > > > > stand tall, so they know they can count on us. But they can only count > > > > on us if we do what is right and have the courage to stand up. > > > > > > > > The same with China and India. India is not my favorite country in the > > > > world, but I will tell you this much, the Indians are struggling to > > have > > a > > > > free and democratic society. They have democratic institutions, and > > > > it is a struggle because they have so many varied people that live in > > > > India. But they are struggling to make their country better and to > > > > have a democratic system and to have rights and have a court > > > > system that functions, to have opposition newspapers. They do not > > > > have any of that in China. Yet instead of helping the Indian people, > > > > we are helping the Communist Chinese people? This is misplaced > > > > priorities at best. > > > > > > > > Finally, in this atmosphere of turmoil and confrontation, let us never > > > > forget who are our greatest allies, and that is the Chinese people > > > > themselves. Let no mistake in the wording that I have used tonight > > > > indicate that I hold the Chinese people accountable or synonymous > > > > with the Chinese government or with Beijing or with the Communist > > > > Party in China. The people of China are as freedom-loving and as > > > > pro-American as any people of the world. > > > > > > > > The people of China are not separated from the rest of humanity. > > > > They too want freedom and honest government. They want to > > > > improve their lives. They do not want a corrupt dictatorship over > > > > them. And any struggle for peace and prosperity, any plan for our > > > > country to try to bring peace to the world and to bring a better life > > > > and to support the cause of freedom must include the people of > > > > China. > > > > > > > > We do not want war. We want the people of China to be free. Then > > > > we could have free and open trade because it would be a free > > > > country and it would be free trade between free people instead of > > > > this travesty that we have today, which is a trade policy that > > > > strengthens the dictatorship. > > > > > > > > When the young people of China rose up and gathered together at > > > > Tiananmen Square, they used our Statue of Liberty as a model for > > > > their own goddess of liberty. That was the statue that they held > > forth. > > > > That was their dream. They dreamed that her torch, the goddess of > > > > liberty, would enlighten all China and they dreamed of a China > > > > democratic, prosperous and free. Our shortsighted policy of > > > > subsidized one-way trade crushes that goddess of liberty every bit > > > > as much as those Red Army tanks did 12 years ago. > > > > > > > > 'Re-examine Our Souls' > > > > > > > > Let us re-examine our souls. Let us re-examine our policies. Let us > > > > reach out to the people of China and claim together that we are all > > > > people of this planet, as our forefathers said, we are the ones, we > > > > are the people who have been given by God the rights of life, liberty > > > > and the pursuit of happiness. That is not just for Americans. That is > > > > for all the people of the world. > > > > > > > > And when we recognize that and reach out with honesty and not for > > > > a quick buck, not just to make a quick buck and then get out, but > > > > instead to reach over to those people and help them build their > > > > country, then we will have a future of peace and prosperity. > > > > > > > > It will not happen if we sell out our own national security interests. > > It > > > > will not happen if we are only siding with the ruling elite in China. > > We > > > > want to share a world with the people of China. We are on their side. > > > > > > > > Let me say this. That includes those soldiers in the People's > > > > Liberation Army. The people in the People's Liberation Army come > > > > from the population of China. They and those other forces at work in > > > > China should rise up and join with all the other people in the world, > > > > especially the American people, who believe in justice and truth; and > > > > we will wipe away those people at the negotiating table today that > > > > represent both sides of this negotiation, and we will sit face-to-face > > > > with all the people in the world who love justice and freedom and > > > > democracy, just as our forefathers thought was America's rightful > > > > role, and we will build a better world that way. > > > > > > > > We will not do it through a World Trade Organization. We will do it > > > > by respecting our own rights and respecting the rights of every other > > > > country and every other people on this planet. > > > > > > > > I hope that tonight the American people have heard these words. > > > > The course is not unalterable. This is a new administration. And in > > > > this new administration, I would hope that we reverse these horrible > > > > mistakes that have compromised our national security and > > > > undermined the cause of liberty and justice. > > > > > > > > I look forward to working with this administration to doing what is > > > > right for our country and right for the cause of peace and freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > Rick Horowitz > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > >
