The implications of this chain of events leads one to think Y2K may be the least of our concerns.

In an article published by AP, writer Edith Lederer talks about China/Russia demanding US stick to Missile treaty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991021/aponline195239_000.htm

Aerospace Daily published an article on Sep. 1, 1999

indicating that China signed a $1.95 billion agreement with Russia to purchase 30 Russian SU-30 Medium Range combat fighter aircraft. These aircraft have the ability to utilize short runway takeoffs and landings.

Chattanooga Free Press published on Friday

http://www.timesfreepress.com/1999/OCT/21OCT99/OPIFPO1

an article offering that US technology sold to China was diverted to military use. McDonnell/Douglas faces indictment.

The Sunday Telegraph (from the UK) recently published a story on the "Dirty War". A military strategy which China will use to destroy the West.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a381134f.0700b.htm ________________________________________________________

Where is all this going?

Read this one!

US to turn over control of the Panama Canal to Red China!

http:www.eagleforum.org/column/

Hopefully these links work, but if they don't just go the the respective homepages and search, you'll find them.

-- Rainman (rainman@uh-oh.com), October 23, 1999

Answers

Why is the government warning us about a terrorist attack but not about y2k? Perhaps we'll be using our preps before we think we will. Just speculation.

-- rmoose (hybrmoose@ctel.net), October 23, 1999.

From an earlier post

(snip) The situation referred to in Panama was actually quite simple: (1). The CIA had cultivated and maneuvered into power one Tony Noriega for the purpose of having a strategic base of operations in this geographically critical country. Tony kept us apprised of all the important news of the day in that part of the world and we had a base of OPS for our various clandestine activities that included arming the Contras.

(2). In return, we gave Tony untold sums of money and allowed, for a time, him to run amok in Panama. Tony was a clever little dictator who took advantage of every opportunity. He held his country under siege while he was the main man for the Colombian drug cartels. He was moving all of the coke for Senor Pablo Escobar and his band of merry men.

(3). As is the case with most of our created dictators around the world (Marcos, Batista, Diem, etc.), Tony became uncontrollable and we went down there in 1989 and removed him from office so to speak.

BTW, did you think that our activities in Somalia had anything to do with feeding the masses? Dont be silly. Look at your map and ask yourself why would we want a military presence in this hellhole of a country. Same thing with the Nam. Its all about strategic positioning and control and either we have it or our perceived enemies willend of story!

Now for the scary part. For the first time in our modern history, someone is using us for the same reasons. Take a guess.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 23, 1999.

-- This (IS@the.truth), October 23, 1999.

Hutchison Whampoa (the Hong Kong-based company that has won the operating rights for the cargo terminals in Panama) is no more an agent of the Chinese government than Microsoft or General Motors is of the U.S. government.

HW is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange and is not (contrary to what you may have heard) owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

I will grant you this, however, it does make an eye-catching story

-- Avalon (cdillon@XX.xxx.net), October 24, 1999.

Anything or anybody that operates out of Hong Kong is controlled by the PRC. To assume otherwise is to be in denial of reality.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 24, 1999.

Avalon, do you have a source link for your posting?

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 24, 1999.

Avalon, excuse me, I should have clarified my request. Do you have a postable source that states unequivocally that Hutchison Whampoa is not in any way politically associated with the PRC or the PLA?

There are many sources that refute that assertion, such as this from the American Foreign Policy Council...

http://www.afpc.org/issues/panama.htm

"The People's Republic of China [PRC], through the Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. company, which has close ties to the PRC government and People's Liberation Army [PLA], was granted a 25-year lease, with an additional 25-year option, for control of the Canal's Atlantic and Pacific Ocean ports of Balboa and Cristobal and adjacent facilities."

Simple logic would lead one to assume that any companies remaining in Hong Kong after the PRC's takeover are 'friendly' with the PRC.

A company that can boast infrastructure holdings, shipping docks and other businesses within Red China also must have strong ties with the PRC governmental structure. Go take a looksee for yourself:

http://www.hutchison-whampoa.com/html/eng/mainmenu.html

You can think what you want, but I do not buy for one second that this company is not politically and philosophically aligned with Red China.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 24, 1999.