Hacker attacks in US linked to Chinese military

[jeff]

Here's a nasty news item:

Hacker attacks in US linked to Chinese military

A systematic effort by hackers to penetrate US government and industry computer networks stems most likely from the Chinese military. The techniques used make it appear unlikely to come from any other source than the military.

URL: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/1....jwmkvntb.html

[Slim]

Scary, yes. Surprising no. China is a huge threat, on many many fronts. The Chinese were making very good progress in purchasing major influence in the office of the President until their candidate lost in 2000. Their agents have infiltrated defense contractors and nuclear weapons research facilities which have enabled them to pushed their capabilities ahead by decades. They continue to pump billions upon billions into their military and military research. Those who mock and laugh at the US for investing in anti-missle research systems seem to forget that the way the US removed the Soviet threat was primarily through investment in military technology, and a strong leader who recognised the threat and was not intimidated. The tables may be turning here and the US may be falling behind the current race.

At some point in the not so distant future, when the time is right and they feel the US is vulnerable, they will make a military play for Taiwan.

[YankeeRebel]

The tables may be turning here and the US may be falling behind the current race.

Makes you wonder why we are so happy to pump American dollars into the Chinese economy . . .

[jeff]

Oh, Slim - you started off so well... And then had to make the gratuitous slur about "their candidate"... Surely you have evidence for the claims you make, huh? I like the Dear Leader reference you made to Reagan, cute.

YankeeRebel: good point. Exporting our jobs and letting them turn out more science majors than us can't be a good idea either.

[Epee_Pox]

Strong trading partnership is usually a strong deterrent to military action. Likewise, study abroad and acculturation tends to diminish xenophobic fears. So I would suggest that trade and education favor peace and don't count as aiding the enemy.

And why exactly would they be considered the enemy, again? It's not as if the Chinese have anything to gain by attacking the US, and neither does the US have much to gain by attacking China. Neither one wants the other's territory, neither one feels the need to liberate the oppressed peoples of the other, and they're not in any border or trade or fisheries disputes likely to escalate to shooting at each other.

Sure, there are intelligence conflicts now and then. And the US despises the oppressive totalitarian regime in China, while China has been slow to come to terms with the (IMO unstoppable) internal pressures for freedom.

The main threat perception is hegemonic in nature. China doesn't want the US telling it what to do, or being in a position of strength that would allow the US to dictate terms. Likewise, the US doesn't want China spreading oppression in Asia.

But the reality is far from threatening to either. The US cannot order China about, but can only request cooperation in areas of mutual concern (such as the destabilizing influence of North Korea). And China is not really interested in exercizing control over territories beyond its traditional hegemony, and has not been so interested since Western civilization was still in diapers.

So there are tensions and strong differences between the two countries. But they are not likely to result in a shooting war any time soon. And trade and education only make such a war less likely.

[jeff]

Good points. Hm, I wonder if the McDonald's hypotheses still holds, that no two countries that have McDonalds have ever declared war on each other.

[Slim]

Strong trading partnership is usually a strong deterrent to military action. Likewise, study abroad and acculturation tends to diminish xenophobic fears. So I would suggest that trade and education favor peace and don't count as aiding the enemy.

And why exactly would they be considered the enemy, again? It's not as if the Chinese have anything to gain by attacking the US, and neither does the US have much to gain by attacking China. Neither one wants the other's territory, neither one feels the need to liberate the oppressed peoples of the other, and they're not in any border or trade or fisheries disputes likely to escalate to shooting at each other.

Sure, there are intelligence conflicts now and then. And the US despises the oppressive totalitarian regime in China, while China has been slow to come to terms with the (IMO unstoppable) internal pressures for freedom.

The main threat perception is hegemonic in nature. China doesn't want the US telling it what to do, or being in a position of strength that would allow the US to dictate terms. Likewise, the US doesn't want China spreading oppression in Asia.

But the reality is far from threatening to either. The US cannot order China about, but can only request cooperation in areas of mutual concern (such as the destabilizing influence of North Korea). And China is not really interested in exercizing control over territories beyond its traditional hegemony, and has not been so interested since Western civilization was still in diapers.

So there are tensions and strong differences between the two countries. But they are not likely to result in a shooting war any time soon. And trade and education only make such a war less likely.

I dont think it has anything to do with xenophobia. And I dont consider China as "the enemy". I consider them to be a threat though. There is a difference.

I think you are correct about open trade and education. But, this isnt what is happening.

The equation is completely lopsided. It's not fair trade. The rules are not the same. China has virtually no controls on pollution or industrial waste. Labor laws are completely different. In China, the government is industry (for the most part). There is no enforcement of any intellectual property laws. For example, Cisco, a major US company has basically been cloned by Hwawei mostly by corporate espionage.

Little by little China is positioning itself to be able to control some very key areas of the US economy. And, unfortunately, we're letting it happen.

The conflict, in my opinion, will most lilkely be over oil. China's reliance on oil is increasing much faster than anywhere else in the world. We recently saw the attempt of China to purchase a US oil company. Taiwan could become the testing ground for any probe into the US's resolve. Is the US willing to go to war with China over Tiawan? I hope not. Over control of limited oil resources? That's another story.

And, as you point out, there are huge internal pressures along the lines of what happened in Tianamen Square. If these pressures get to that point again, and the current regime feels like it is losing power, its possible that rather than lose control, some type of military action could be used to ensure control. Similar to the Soviet's considering a nuclear strike rather than lose control. We witnessed that they have no problem unleashing their military on protesting students.

My point is that I think China is currently the greatest long term potential threat to the US and should not be ignored, empowered or placated.

[Slim]

Oh, Slim - you started off so well... And then had to make the gratuitous slur about "their candidate"... Surely you have evidence for the claims you make, huh? I like the Dear Leader reference you made to Reagan, cute.

YankeeRebel: good point. Exporting our jobs and letting them turn out more science majors than us can't be a good idea either.

Sorry, I cant help myself.

And yes, I think Reagan was a great leader, and that history will be very kind to him.

So, here is a little bit about Al Gore's Chinese contributors:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/11/judis-j.html

And to put it a little more in context with what was happening with the Clinton/Gore adminstration at the time (yes, I did copy and paste this list):

The Red Chinese military (the so-called People’s Liberation Army, or PLA) is now able to deploy much more accurate nuclear-armed missiles pointed at the United States, in large measure because of policy decisions by President Clinton that have benefited campaign donors — including one who laundered money for the PLA.

• In exchange for "hush money" paid to Webster Hubbell by the Red Chinese-connected Indonesian Lippo conglomerate, Bill Clinton personally sponsored the appointment of John Huang, a suspected Red Chinese agent, to a sensitive Commerce Department post, where, as Timperlake and Triplett note, "he could be a source of priceless military and economic intelligence" for Red China. Huang proved to be a particularly valuable asset in collecting intelligence on high technology, including satellite encryption technology that is vital to America’s defense — and highly coveted by the PLA.

• President Clinton and his subordinates made extraordinary efforts to facilitate the lease of the former Long Beach Naval Station to the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), a PLA-connected container shipping fleet that specializes in drug and weapons smuggling. This followed illegal donations filtered from Red Chinese sources. A COSCO affiliate has also been granted a lease on the Panama Canal’s "anchor ports" of Cristobal and Balboa, thereby foreshadowing Beijing’s control over one of the world’s most critical strategic "choke points."

• Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a member of a Red Chinese-linked Triad criminal syndicate, laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars into both the Clinton-Gore campaign and the President’s legal defense trust. Following a $460,000 donation to the legal defense trust, Trie — acting as a courier on behalf of Red China — placed a "strategic memo in front of the President at a time of international crisis, resulting in a reply that changed a long-established element of foreign policy," recall Timperlake and Triplett. Mr. Clinton’s reply to the memo signaled a decisive turn away from previous assurances to the free Chinese of Taiwan that the U.S. would defend them against aggression from Beijing.

• On dozens of occasions, Mr. Clinton has refused to impose sanctions on Beijing for its export of military technologies to terrorist states, despite the fact that he is required by law — specifically, a law co-written by the senator whom he chose as his running mate, Al Gore — to impose sanctions.

• The Administration has conferred prestige and status upon both the political and military leaders who ordered and carried out the Tiananmen Square massacre. PLA General Chi Haotian, who was in operational command of the troops who conducted the slaughter, and General Xu Huizi, who was in tactical command of the troops on-site, have been received in Washington, DC with full honors and allowed to tour sensitive U.S. military installations. For good measure, General Chi’s entourage included an official who had casually mentioned the possibility that Beijing might attack Los Angeles with nuclear weapons should the U.S. come to the aid of Taiwan after an invasion from the mainland.

[Slim]

Surely you have evidence for the claims you make, huh?

Here is a whole book's worth:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089...lance&n=283155

[jeff]

Sorry, I cant help myself.

And yes, I think Reagan was a great leader, and that history will be very kind to him.

So, here is a little bit about Al Gore's Chinese contributors:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/11/judis-j.html

(other parts snipped)

I guess you can't help yourself, and I don't really mind your hero-worship, so I'll applaud you a little bit for taking some effort to try to prove the case you made. Good for you - really.

However (there's always a however, isn't there):

1. What irritated me was your immediate need to turn the subject into partisan bashing. Do you always have to do that? Sheesh.

2. You are aware, aren't you, that the URL you quote above exonerates Gore, rather than says he's guilty. So, the link you came up with contradicts your claim!

"The vice president did not break the law, the report concluded"
"Gore's calls were not illegal either way."
"Gore showed extremely poor judgment, but there is no evidence that he knowingly violated campaign laws that ban money laundering and foreign contributions."
"There is nothing here except irresponsible partisan warfare."

Read the article you site, Slim. It's sloppy work to cite an article the contradicts the point you're trying to make.

And to put it a little more in context with what was happening with the Clinton/Gore adminstration at the time (yes, I did copy and paste this list): (snip)

I don't mind copy and paste - that's a time-saving thing to do. But copy and paste from where? It's not in the article you linked. I don't know the provenance of these quotes and how accurate they are, especially with the claims you make against Clinton and Gore, let alone the veracity of the book you cite. if we're going to spend a few minutes on them, they're hypothetical and not substantiated. "he could be a source of priceless military and economic intelligence", "foreshadowing Beijing’s control". Bad things 'could be', or are 'foreshadowed'. That's pretty vaporous stuff, Slim, and the connections to Clinton and Gore are asserted, rather than proven.

It seems churlish to complain about Clinton when Bush policy hasn't been all that fierce. See http://www.aim.org/aim_report/2708_0_4_0_C/ where it mentions Bush not using legal means to prevent Chinese acquisition of an important technology company with sensitive technology, plus other inaction. Tsk. Or go back to GWB I, who renewed Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China. "Or you can look at what former Bush officials have said and done since they left office. The Scowcroft Group did not merely defend China against congressional critics who wanted to revoke most-favored-nation trading status; it rejected any fair criticism of the Chinese regime. When the Clinton administration rightfully took the Chinese to task in 1996 for selling nuclear technology to Pakistan, the Scowcroft Group said the fault lay with the United States, not with China." from http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=5441

So, there's really no reason to make this (and everything else) into a partisan bashing exercise.

[Slim]

I guess you can't help yourself, and I don't really mind your hero-worship, so I'll applaud you a little bit for taking some effort to try to prove the case you made. Good for you - really.

However (there's always a however, isn't there):

1. What irritated me was your immediate need to turn the subject into partisan bashing. Do you always have to do that? Sheesh.

2. You are aware, aren't you, that the URL you quote above exonerates Gore, rather than says he's guilty. So, the link you came up with contradicts your claim!

"The vice president did not break the law, the report concluded"
"Gore's calls were not illegal either way."
"Gore showed extremely poor judgment, but there is no evidence that he knowingly violated campaign laws that ban money laundering and foreign contributions."
"There is nothing here except irresponsible partisan warfare."

Read the article you site, Slim. It's sloppy work to cite an article the contradicts the point you're trying to make.



I don't mind copy and paste - that's a time-saving thing to do. But copy and paste from where? It's not in the article you linked. I don't know the provenance of these quotes and how accurate they are, especially with the claims you make against Clinton and Gore, let alone the veracity of the book you cite. if we're going to spend a few minutes on them, they're hypothetical and not substantiated. "he could be a source of priceless military and economic intelligence", "foreshadowing Beijing’s control". Bad things 'could be', or are 'foreshadowed'. That's pretty vaporous stuff, Slim, and the connections to Clinton and Gore are asserted, rather than proven.

It seems churlish to complain about Clinton when Bush policy hasn't been all that fierce. See http://www.aim.org/aim_report/2708_0_4_0_C/ where it mentions Bush not using legal means to prevent Chinese acquisition of an important technology company with sensitive technology, plus other inaction. Tsk. Or go back to GWB I, who renewed Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China. "Or you can look at what former Bush officials have said and done since they left office. The Scowcroft Group did not merely defend China against congressional critics who wanted to revoke most-favored-nation trading status; it rejected any fair criticism of the Chinese regime. When the Clinton administration rightfully took the Chinese to task in 1996 for selling nuclear technology to Pakistan, the Scowcroft Group said the fault lay with the United States, not with China." from http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=5441

So, there's really no reason to make this (and everything else) into a partisan bashing exercise.

Man, you are one sharp cookie. Nothin' gets by you. Nothin'.

I put that initial link in to show that although the author claims there he finds no "guilt" as far as campaign laws may or may not go , he does not dismiss the clear connection between Gore and the Chinese operatives. The book, Jeff, does a fine job of running with the connection and disecting how deep the Chinese were entrenched in that administration.

The quotes came from the book. Read the book. Or, as usual, just dismiss them as unsubstantiated claims. I really dont care. I'm not too concerned in trying to satisfy your endless thirst for proof.

Re-read my original post. I made no mention of the current adminstration doing anything to solve the problem. The $$ and influence the Chinese were able to purchase with Clinton/Gore is well documented.

Your links are mere claims. There is nothing to substantiate them.

Political discussion is partisan.

[jeff]

Man, you are one sharp cookie. Nothin' gets by you. Nothin'.

I proofread and copyedit well too. Finding mistakes like this is a piece of cake.

I put that initial link in to show that although the author claims there he finds no "guilt" as far as campaign laws may or may not go , he does not dismiss the clear connection between Gore and the Chinese operatives. The book, Jeff, does a fine job of running with the connection and disecting how deep the Chinese were entrenched in that administration.

Actually, the link shows the exact opposite. Read it more carefully: "The committee also did not uncover any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of a campaign deal between the administration and the PRC."

The book I can't speak about, since I don't have a copy.

The quotes came from the book. Read the book. Or, as usual, just dismiss them as unsubstantiated claims. I really dont care. I'm not too concerned in trying to satisfy your endless thirst for proof.

The book might be wonderfully well documented, or it might be a hack job. Such things do exist. See for example, the many instances on this board in which material by Michael Moore was dismissed out of hand, due to who it came from (I don't say that to either disaprove or approve of his stuff) If I were motivated to look at this book I would evaluate it based on the contents: how well it reasons, and how it backs up its claims with documentation. I try to understand things based on facts and reasoning - don't you agree that is the right way to go? Or what do you prefer instead?

Re-read my original post. I made no mention of the current adminstration doing anything to solve the problem. The $$ and influence the Chinese were able to purchase with Clinton/Gore is well documented.

No, it was just a gratuitous smear in passing, describing a former US Vice President and candidate for President as a dupe and spy of China (and of course, leaving unmentioned at all what presidents 41 and 43 do) That's such a little thing, it seems to you, that it doesn't warrant any proof. Nice world you live in.

[QUOTE=Slim]Your links are mere claims. There is nothing to substantiate them.

Political discussion is partisan.

Not always, obviously. Some people just can't let go of *always* making partisan smears. It's tiresome, Slim.

[Slim]

The book might be wonderfully well documented, or it might be a hack job. Such things do exist. See for example, the many instances on this board in which material by Michael Moore was dismissed out of hand, due to who it came from (I don't say that to either disaprove or approve of his stuff) If I were motivated to look at this book I would evaluate it based on the contents: how well it reasons, and how it backs up its claims with documentation. I try to understand things based on facts and reasoning - don't you agree that is the right way to go? Or what do you prefer instead?

I'll say it again, Jeff. Read the book, Jeff. Or not. I really dont care.

No, it was just a gratuitous smear in passing, describing a former US Vice President and candidate for President as a dupe and spy of China (and of course, leaving unmentioned at all what presidents 41 and 43 do) That's such a little thing, it seems to you, that it doesn't warrant any proof. Nice world you live in.

Yes, and we all know gratuitous smears NEVER happen here. My bad.

Not always, obviously. Some people just can't let go of *always* making partisan smears. It's tiresome, Slim.

Then ignore my posts, Jeff.

[jeff]

I don't expect to read the book. If you're an example of the thought leaders that believe it, then it's probably trash. The main thing that motivates these books seems to be animosity towards Clinton. It's your argument that Clinton's a baddie, I don't have any obligation to do exert effort on your behalf to see if your argument is valid - that's your job. I would have a little respect for that position if you didn't single him out and went equally after people like Bush I, who went out of his way to suck up to the Chinese government after the Tiananmen massacre. Since you never do, your motivation is clear (smear) hence your conclusions are worthless.

Yes, it is 'your bad' making gratuitous smears - yours are the prime examples on this board. You don't disagree or offer any apology - you say others do it too. I expect that excuse from a child, not from a grownup. Everybody is responsible for their own behavior: you're responsible for your posts and should stand behind them, not say "others do it too". I feel like I'm talking to a child.

I already ignore your posts from the point of view "there is something interesting and useful I can read here". As civic duty it's worthwhile to point out jerks in the public marketplace of ideas,so it's worth a little of my time to respond to your nonsense, now and then. Your quota for the month is expiring.

[Slim]

I don't expect to read the book. If you're an example of the thought leaders that believe it, then it's probably trash. The main thing that motivates these books seems to be animosity towards Clinton. It's your argument that Clinton's a baddie, I don't have any obligation to do exert effort on your behalf to see if your argument is valid - that's your job. I would have a little respect for that position if you didn't single him out and went equally after people like Bush I, who went out of his way to suck up to the Chinese government after the Tiananmen massacre. Since you never do, your motivation is clear (smear) hence your conclusions are worthless.

Yes, it is 'your bad' making gratuitous smears - yours are the prime examples on this board. You don't disagree or offer any apology - you say others do it too. I expect that excuse from a child, not from a grownup. Everybody is responsible for their own behavior: you're responsible for your posts and should stand behind them, not say "others do it too". I feel like I'm talking to a child.

I already ignore your posts from the point of view "there is something interesting and useful I can read here". As civic duty it's worthwhile to point out jerks in the public marketplace of ideas,so it's worth a little of my time to respond to your nonsense, now and then. Your quota for the month is expiring.

Civic duty? Heh. You, Jeff, are a real piece of work. Now, take 5 and unbunch your panties.

[jeff]

I knew I could count on you for a typically thoughtful, intelligent response! Ha, ha, ha!

[LUDICROUS]

It is my unshakeable belief that there will either be a war over the last remaining oil (seems pointless, because you need to pour oil into the war machine to make it work, but it's still very possible if someone acts to safeguard their oil for the future) on the planet, it makes sense. No one will want to share...If we can murder each other over religion, we can definitely murder each other over oil.

[Epee_Pox]

The UK intelligence community spies on the US. Canada spies on Mexico. The France spies on Greece. Does this mean that these countries are in danger of going to war?

The US spies back at the UK. Its intelligence-gathering techniques include, among many other things, the hacking of sensitive electronically-stored data. Does this mean the UK should get its panties in a bunch over it? Or ought they instead simply shrug their shoulders, accept that this is how the "game" is played, beef up their defenses and try it right back?

And how are any of these examples different from the US-China thing?

[Epee_Pox]

The France spies on ...

Excusez-moi. Qu'est-ce que je pensais, pour dire "la France"? Comment gallique on peut-il être? Si ceci continue, j'écrirai en français. . . mal!

[Slim]

The UK intelligence community spies on the US. Canada spies on Mexico. The France spies on Greece. Does this mean that these countries are in danger of going to war?

The US spies back at the UK. Its intelligence-gathering techniques include, among many other things, the hacking of sensitive electronically-stored data. Does this mean the UK should get its panties in a bunch over it? Or ought they instead simply shrug their shoulders, accept that this is how the "game" is played, beef up their defenses and try it right back?

And how are any of these examples different from the US-China thing?

Because none of the countries you mentioned have the same economic influence on the US that China has. (Unless Mexico deciced to recall all it's undocumented workers )