Stop blaming ourselves for 9-11

http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=141595&zoneid=35

By Bangor Daily News Staff

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - Bangor Daily News << Back


By David D. Wilson

I’m not sure if the op-ed by Robert Klose (BDN, Sept. 25), which excoriates President Bush and his administration, reads more like a Molly Ivins column or the text of an Al Gore speech, but either way, it’s over the top.

Klose seems to buy into much of the weary little caricature promulgated by some hysterical Democrats of George W. Bush as a bumbling dolt who struggles to read "My Pet Goat," but is somehow also a sinister, crafty, tyrannical despot who, along with political strategist Karl Rove, fiendishly destroys the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon, in an amazing conspiratorial plot designed to allow the president to shred the Constitution and spy on all Americans, particularly Democrats, and to torture with impunity while he cynically sends American troops into battle in Iraq, not for national security reasons, but for the express purpose of making his oil-industry friends rich, all at the behest of his "daddy."

And how do Democrats know these things are true? Because Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore and Brad Pitt have told us so. Along with Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, the Bush-bashers have generated a cacophonous chorus of complaining, carping and caterwauling, all during a time of war. And while the "George W. Bush is an evil dictator" doctrine seems to be the alternative reality of choice in the hearts and minds of a relatively small, but vociferous group of Democrats, many Americans, I think, dismiss that kind of ridiculous nonsense. That’s because they intuitively understand that the president is an inherently decent guy doing an impossible job, and they aren’t particularly impressed with blatant partisanship at a time when our national survival is at stake.

According to Article Two of the Constitution, the president has not only the right, but the obligation and sworn duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." George W. Bush’s insistence, for example, that NSA (National Security Administration) wiretapping is in conformity with the law was not pulled out of thin air.

In 2002, a special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) appeals ruled in favor of wiretapping. In "Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), where a federal court "held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain intelligence information."

The Congress of the United States voted, in joint resolution, shortly after 9-11 to give the president the power to do whatever he deemed necessary to defeat terrorism. How can he possibly do that without proper intelligence data? And how can he be authorized to kill the terrorists but not to listen to their phone calls? It is notably unhelpful for Democratic Party leaders to engage in endless bitter, mocking criticism while actively undermining virtually every tool the president has at his disposal for preventing another attack on America, including NSA wiretapping, data mining and the Patriot Act, without producing any real and substantive evidence that he’s damaging the Constitution or curtailing the civil rights of Americans.

Democratic leaders also insist we confer constitutional rights and Geneva Conventions protection on incarcerated enemy combatants, who are not U.S. citizens or signatories to the Geneva Conventions, who wear no uniforms and were likely caught trying to blow up our country or kill our soldiers. In previous wars, these people were called "spies" and they had a very short life span once caught. Contrary to popular belief, those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, for example, are treated well. They are offered a balanced menu and most gain weight while in prison, are allowed to read their Koran and have air conditioning.

Those partisans who continue to use the Abu Ghraib aberration as a political weapon against the president ignore the real facts regarding just how humane this country really is to our enemies on balance, particularly when one considers 1) just how brutally our soldiers and journalists are treated when captured by the same people, and 2) the fact that the lives of our soldiers and citizens, according to ABC News reporter Brian Ross, can and have been saved by extracting valuable information about tactics and possible future attacks from suspected terrorists who we’ve incarcerated.

Furthermore, those who say we deserve to be attacked are sadly mistaken. This nation has done more to educate, liberate and defend peaceful Muslims than any nation on earth. How many Muslims from all over the world have been welcomed at American colleges and universities? Compare the growing number of mosques in this country with the number of Christian churches in the Middle East.

How much more tolerant could we possibly be? And how many times did our military go into the Balkans to protect Muslims from ethnic cleansing in the ’90s?

The United States has freed 50 million people, mostly Muslim, from the murderous totalitarian governments of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The terrorists, of course, don’t like freedom and are still working overtime to destabilize these countries. And when there is a natural disaster in the Muslim world such as the terrible tsunami which struck recently, what country delivers most of the relief? America, of course. That’s why all this "Why do they hate us?" stuff is nuts. There’s no way to make radical Islamists like this country. They have an implacable hostility toward America that cannot be assuaged, mollified or ameliorated. They subscribe to a draconian worldview that stipulates, without equivocation, that our civilization must be destroyed. That’s why we need to stop blaming ourselves for 911 and unite to defeat those who would like nothing better than to reduce this nation, like the twin towers, to smoldering ruins.

Since when did you ever blame yourself. If that was true you would have bombed the shit out of washington.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/olbermann_death_of_habeas_corpus_words_are_lies.ht m

Listen to this.

And visit Infowars.com

Nancy Pelosi, is evil, "bush-bashing", "michael moore", what an idiotic rehash of Republican talking points. Not even recent ones, those are so tired and played out.

Bush IS incompetent,
Rove IS devious,
Iraq was NOT part of the war on terrorism,
I don't know why Bush invaded Iraq, but oil was a factor of some kind,
Liberal pundits didn't tell us these things, read the papers,
Bush admitting to breaking the FISA laws in violation of the consitution,
A federal judge DID declare it illegal,
Abu Grabe was NOT just an abberation,
NO Democrat I know says we deserved to get attacked.

um...I actually blamed myself a bit. Because 6 months before this 9-11 happened, I saw a dream of it, a white cloud looked like nuclear blast on top of manhattan. I feel a bit weird for this event, since I dont believe that one can see the future, yet I myself saw it.

Nancy Pelosi, is evil, "bush-bashing", "michael moore", what an idiotic rehash of Republican talking points. Not even recent ones, those are so tired and played out.

Bush IS incompetent,
Rove IS devious,
Iraq was NOT part of the war on terrorism,
I don't know why Bush invaded Iraq, but oil was a factor of some kind,
Liberal pundits didn't tell us these things, read the papers,
Bush admitting to breaking the FISA laws in violation of the consitution,
A federal judge DID declare it illegal,
Abu Grabe was NOT just an abberation,
NO Democrat I know says we deserved to get attacked.

um...I actually blamed myself a bit. Because 6 months before this 9-11 happened, I saw a dream of it, a white cloud looked like nuclear blast on top of manhattan. I feel a bit weird for this event, since I dont believe that one can see the future, yet I myself saw it.


Has nothing to do with Spider's comment, which is more relevant.

Has nothing to do with Spider's comment, which is more relevant.

thanks for ur support.

I don't blame myself. I blame American foreign policy, I blame Bush, I blame the CIA, I blame MOSAD. I blame the dickheads who actually believed the religious hype and perpetrated the act. I blame them for not realising the trap they were being let into and being too blind to notice the puppeteers. But I don't blame myself.

I blame the illuminati. I'm sure they had something to do with it.

thanks for ur support.

What I said is true.

But as a matter of fact you bring something interesting up. I in fact was playing Flight Simulator a week before. Well I think you know where this is going. I was at my friends house who is a pilot and well, he had the game. I was flying and I accidentally flew into the twin towers with some commercial jet. And well the game froze. I called my friend over and told him this. Then I said "I wonder what would happen if this were to come to fruition". We shrugged it off. But we now know the answer. This moment changed the world.

I blame the illuminati. I'm sure they had something to do with it.
are you serious in buying that "theory"?

I blame Osama bin Laden, and his Islamofascist buddies.

I blame Osama bin Laden, and his Islamofascist buddies.

I blame Bush and his Fascist buddies.

Me too, but alot of those other things are still correct. Bush didn't have to plan 9.11 to exploit it.

I blame all americans for letting a destructive foreign policy just happen for decades.

At this point you can't even claim like the germans did: 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst'. ('i didn't know')

You know. You knew.

I blame all americans for letting a destructive foreign policy just happen for decades.

Which foreign policy are you talking about, Spurious?

Please be specific ...and please don't mistake free-enterprise and private, international trade between companies as "foreign policy". Free trade is NOT foreign policy, okay?

Baron Max

Which foreign policy are you talking about, Spurious?

Please be specific ...and please don't mistake free-enterprise and private, international trade between companies as "foreign policy". Free trade is NOT foreign policy, okay?

Baron Max

Please don't post if you have no message.

Foreign policy as implemented by the US government.

Foreign policy as implemented by the US government.

Which ones, Spurious? You seem to be highly against something that you can't even name or identify! Why is that? ...just more of the "Hate America" campaign or something?

Baron Max

No one is blaming America for 9/11. Our mission in Afghanistan is clear and is an honourable campaign that we should finish at ANY cost. Remember, Ayman Al-Zawahri is still free. Osama Bin Laden is still free. The Taliban are not annihilated. Al Qaida in Afghanistan is not annihilated. We need to finish that.

We are blaming America for the Iraq invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11. If Iraq were really important for the war on terror, can we please name which terrorist organizations existed in Iraq that Saddam supported? Remember, he was secular dictator who was THREATENED by religious extremists.

If anything, we should've invaded Iran. They openly support Hezbollah and have a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

Instead of going after the REAL bad guy, we got side-tracked into attacking a virtual no-threat.

Playing the blame game does not produce any solutions.
What we need to look at is what went wrong and how we prevent future attacks. Issues like expired visas because it seems that some of the terrorists of 9-11 should not have been in the country as their visas had expired. Also the bureaucratic turf war mentality that makes a sieve of national security.

I blame all americans for letting a destructive foreign policy just happen for decades.

At this point you can't even claim like the germans did: 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst'. ('i didn't know')

You know. You knew.
Heh. Where is this idiot Spurious from... Sweden, Switzerland, somewhere like that? One of those supposedly "neutral" countries during WW2, claiming neutrality while their governments and banks were using Nazi gold. I suppose he'll claim he didn't know that, too.

Fact is every nation in the world with any influence is playing the game. The only thing the Europeans hate about America so much at the moment is that they're visibly dominant while Europe fades into obscurity.

The top 5 arms dealers in the world are America, China, France, Great Britain and Germany. There are plenty more in Europe also plying the trade. I suppose this monkey will try to tell us the European governments have absolutely no say in where those arms end up, and that European nations aren't trying to influence Africa and the Middle East at all.

Playing the blame game does not produce any solutions.
What we need to look at is what went wrong and how we prevent future attacks. Issues like expired visas because it seems that some of the terrorists of 9-11 should not have been in the country as their visas had expired. Also the bureaucratic turf war mentality that makes a sieve of national security.

It's not the "blame game" it's more like figuring out the root causes. The United States is not beyond criticism.

It's not the "blame game" it's more like figuring out the root causes. The United States is not beyond criticism.

How far back into history shall we go? I mean, if we stop anywhere, then it's entirely possible that the "root cause" was just a little bit further in the past .....and we missed it.

This "root cause" bullshit is nothing more than another slogan to be spouted about when you ain't got nothing else to say. It's just like the bullshit about winning "hearts n' minds", when it's perfectly clear that in all of the wars that's been fought and won throughout history, not one, no country ever worried about "hearts n' minds"!! Yet that slogan is spewed about all the time by people who try to make us think that they actually know something!

All of history is one long, long line of "root causes" ...to point to one as THE "root cause" for something is the height of ignorance.

Baron Max

There's an "s" after cause. That makes it plural. There could be multiple causes in multiple nations. My point was that an honest assessment of the situation isn't necessarily fixing blame, also that terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum as a result of a "bad attitude" or insanity.

In light of this:
How far back into history shall we go? I mean, if we stop anywhere, then it's entirely possible that the "root cause" was just a little bit further in the past .....and we missed it.

This "root cause" bullshit is nothing more than another slogan to be spouted about when you ain't got nothing else to say. It's just like the bullshit about winning "hearts n' minds", when it's perfectly clear that in all of the wars that's been fought and won throughout history, not one, no country ever worried about "hearts n' minds"!! Yet that slogan is spewed about all the time by people who try to make us think that they actually know something!

All of history is one long, long line of "root causes" ...to point to one as THE "root cause" for something is the height of ignorance.

Baron Max
Are you the same Baron Max that posted this?


“ Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Does it really matter who started the whole thing? ... Maybe that doesn't really matter... ”

Well, it might not matter to you or I, but if it matters to those in the conflict, then it matters .....and it must be resolved in order to go forth.

No, it doesn't matter to you or I, but it obviously matters to the Palestinians and the Israelis ......and thus, ....it matters.

Baron Max

:confused:
You are confusing me, do causes matter or don't they?

My point was that an honest assessment of the situation isn't necessarily fixing blame, also that terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum as a result of a "bad attitude" or insanity.

Terrorism was being practiced in the Middle East and in Arab nations/areas of the world as far back as the 15th century. So was that the fault of the America foreign policies????

Again, the problem of "root causes" is totally moot ....since we can never be sure, no matter how far back into history we go. And if we mistakenly conclude that x,y and z are the "root causes", then we might possibly cause more fuckin' damage than we solve.

"Root causes", "hearts n' minds", "exit strategy" and other nonsensical phrases are just that ....useless, nonsensical phrases that do nothing but cause heightened emotional reactions. And we all know that emotional reactions ain't usually things that we want during world crises.

Baron Max

You are confusing me, do causes matter or don't they?

What did any of that have to do with "root causes"????? What the fuck are you reading into my post? ...that wasn't there??

Baron Max

Of course we do not aim to eliminate the tactic of terrorism from the planet.

What did any of that have to do with "root causes"????? What the fuck are you reading into my post? ...that wasn't there??

Baron Max

I don't mean superficial causes of strife, like the latest bomb, but the source of the sentiment that people need to be bombed.

Of course we do not aim to eliminate the tactic of terrorism from the planet.

So ....what the hell do these "root causes" do for us, then??? Just give us something else to argue about? ...since we have so few world issues already to argue about?

Baron Max

I don't mean superficial causes of strife, like the latest bomb, but the source of the sentiment that people need to be bombed.

So, how far back in history do you wish to go? And what if you don't go far enough and make some mistaken assumptions about these "root causes"? Then what? And what have you accomplished?

Baron Max

How far back into history shall we go? I mean, if we stop anywhere, then it's entirely possible that the "root cause" was just a little bit further in the past .....and we missed it.

This "root cause" bullshit is nothing more than another slogan to be spouted about when you ain't got nothing else to say. It's just like the bullshit about winning "hearts n' minds", when it's perfectly clear that in all of the wars that's been fought and won throughout history, not one, no country ever worried about "hearts n' minds"!! Yet that slogan is spewed about all the time by people who try to make us think that they actually know something!

All of history is one long, long line of "root causes" ...to point to one as THE "root cause" for something is the height of ignorance.

Baron Max

Hearts and Minds campaign was successfully used by the British in their wars on terrorism in Indonesia and Oman in the 1950s and 60s. Hearts and minds, coupled with a strategic military action, helped eliminate communist terrorists in those countries. Since then, we haven't heard of ONE instance of communist terrorists in Oman and Indonesia and the British left Oman and Indonesia pretty soon after.

It's that type of standard I hope Americans use in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hearts and Minds campaign was successfully used by the British in their wars on terrorism in Indonesia and Oman in the 1950s and 60s.

And just how long did they keep terrorism in check in those nations? And didn't they leave those areas in the 50s or so?

It's easy to fight terrorism if you tell everyone that ye're fixin' to leave the area!! ...LOL! They gave the terrorists exactly, precisely, what the terrorists wanted ....for the Brits to leave. And they did!

What's interesting is that you can even equate that to the issue of "hearts n' minds" as touted today about the US! :rolleyes:

Baron Max

And just how long did they keep terrorism in check in those nations? And didn't they leave those areas in the 50s or so?

It's easy to fight terrorism if you tell everyone that ye're fixin' to leave the area!! ...LOL! They gave the terrorists exactly, precisely, what the terrorists wanted ....for the Brits to leave. And they did!

What's interesting is that you can even equate that to the issue of "hearts n' minds" as touted today about the US! :rolleyes:

Baron Max

As I mentioned, the British effectively ELIMINATED communist terrorism in Indonesia and Oman. During the 50s, the threat to the world was communism, and the British helped eliminate communist terrorists supported by the USSR in those two countries. It was VERY successful.

The British did not fight a war on Islamic terrorism, which you are probably eluding to.

In any case, I'm not trying to debate you, because there is no debate. The US forces try to do it anyway, whether or not you think it's a successful strategy or not:

U.S. military wins hearts and minds in Pakistan (http://www.pakquake2005.com/article.php?story=20060103001343359)

Hearts and Minds (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed122705a.cfm) (Heritage Foundation)

H. Thomas Hayden: Winning Hearts and Minds - Not (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_122203,00.html) (Military.com)

Losing Hearts And Minds (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031208-552124-1,00.html) (Time)

A case could be made for listening to phone calls. After all, desperate times call for desperate measures. But no case can be made in this instance since the phone calls that need to be listened to will almost certainly be conducted in Arabic. Five frelling years after 9/11 our magnificent, efficient, protective government's intelligence staff still includes a grand total of something like thirty people who can understand Arabic. That won't even cover the Arabic-language phone calls in Detroit!

But by jingo, if those pesky Russians try anything, we'll be ready for them.

As for blaming ourselves... For the goddess's sake, how much have you people been smoking? Have you all forgotten that the United States of America created the Taliban in the first place? In order to keep those pesky Russians from taking over that little drennhole called Afghanistan?

Just exactly how much more clearly could the blame for 9/11 be assigned?

But no case can be made in this instance since the phone calls that need to be listened to will almost certainly be conducted in Arabic. Five frelling years after 9/11 our magnificent, efficient, protective government's intelligence staff still includes a grand total of something like thirty people who can understand Arabic. That won't even cover the Arabic-language phone calls in Detroit!

Ahh, so you've never heard of those new-fangled devices recently invented called "recorders"? They're pretty neat, actually. You can "record" sounds (however they could possibly do something like THAT?!), then play it back later for those who understand Arabic. Pretty neat, huh?

I've even heard of some new-fangled things called "computers" that can be programmed to selectively isolate certain sounds ...like Arabic words that might signal a threat. But again, those computer-things are just rumor.

Hell, it's almost like science fiction, ya' know? Geez, I don't know what else they might invent next ...maybe even a horseless carriage or something, ya' know? Wow!

Have you all forgotten that the United States of America created the Taliban in the first place?

Rather sensationalist of you, ain't it? First, it was NOT the Taliban. Second, we did NOT "create" the Afghan "freedom fighters", we just helped them some against our old enemy Russia. So, please ....let's not go too overboat with the sensationalist bullshit ...there might be some youngsters here who'd actually believe your crap!

Baron Max

Ahh, so you've never heard of those new-fangled devices recently invented called "recorders"? They're pretty neat, actually. You can "record" sounds (however they could possibly do something like THAT?!), then play it back later for those who understand Arabic. Pretty neat, huh?There were 1.2 million Arabic-speaking people in the USA in the 2000 census. If their growth rate is consistent with previous decades that number would be around 1.5 million today. Thirty translators cannot handle that volume of communication even if the federal government were to miraculously become a paragon of technological and organizational efficiency overnight. Which it is not: Look at the dismal state of the obsolete FBI and IRS computer systems for representative samples.

All critics from right and left, American and foreign, academic and military, agree that our redneck tradition of ignorance of foreign languages has finally caught up with us. Shortly after 9/11 the figure was widely published that the CIA had a five-year backlog of untranslated documents in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and other strategically important Mideastern languages. For all they knew a PowerPoint file with exhaustively detailed plans for the WTC attack could have been sitting at the bottom of some bureaucrat's in-basket awaiting translation. This situation has been tracked carefully and the number of operatives trained in Mideastern languages has barely increased, even though at least half of the brilliant linguists who comprise the gigantic surplus of Russian translators could have easily been retrained in another language in the five years since 9/11, not to mention the fifteen years since Perestroika.I've even heard of some new-fangled things called "computers" that can be programmed to selectively isolate certain sounds ...like Arabic words that might signal a threat. But again, those computer-things are just rumor.I've been a specialist in these computer thingies since 1967 and I can assure you that their capabilities are vastly overrated. With contemporary processing speed and storage capacity the potential now exists to do these things. But to turn that potential into any one single type of functional software is a human labor-intensive project of daunting scope. Look how long it took to get reliable fingerprint identification and genome sequencing. Try making an airline reservation and you'll become acquainted with the dismal state of the art in voice recognition software.Hell, it's almost like science fiction, ya' know?Arabic has dozens of dialects and their intercomprehensibility is lower than that between the English of Scotland and Mississippi. Don't take the ads in the trade press too seriously; Arabic voice recognition software reliable enough to use for intel is indeed science fiction.Rather sensationalist of you, ain't it? First, it was NOT the Taliban. Second, we did NOT "create" the Afghan "freedom fighters", we just helped them some against our old enemy Russia.All right, so the Taliban started out as one of a hundred disorganized little groups of incompetently-parented, undereducated, sex-starved, testosterone-crazed Muslim fundies looking for infidels to blame their misery on. The U.S. was deliberately supporting the most extremist of these groups to hold off the coalition that eventually became known as the Northern Alliance, which the Soviets were backing in their attempt to make Afghanistan a puppet state. The group that eventually became known as the Taliban had the good fortune to accidentally guide a convoy of oil trucks through hostile territory, capturing the attention of our loyal allies in freedom-loving Pakistan. There's nothing like a glowing reference from Islamabad on a terrorist group's CV to win the hearts of the decision makers at the CIA, and the Taliban quickly became America's protege.So, please ....let's not go too overboat with the sensationalist bullshit ...there might be some youngsters here who'd actually believe your crap!Reasonable people disagree but you're going to have to present some facts to support your argument in this case. I've never encountered anyone of any political stripe who has been paying attention to the Mideast since the fall of the Shah who agrees with you on this one.

The CIA and other American sources also lent considerable support to Osama bin Laden in the last decade of the Cold War. We did not singlehandedly create this monster but we certainly made generous contributions to his stellar success.

Our government also supported Saddam Hussein in his eight-year war against Iran, giving him legitimacy in the region, political capital among his own people, and a whole lot of weapons. After being humiliated by Khomeini during the year-long embassy-hostage debacle, we were willing to make a pact with Satan in order to get back at Iran. It's interesting to note that even though Iraq is a much larger country than Iran, it has an enormously larger military force, it was supplied with American weapons, and Iran was right next door within marching distance, Saddam was unable to defeat measly Iran. This is the guy who the Religious Redneck Retard in the White House insists was a threat to America, thousands of miles away!

Cause-and-effect can be complicated to analyze. There is often no single reason for anything and blame can be cast in every direction. Still, it is not unreasonable to look at America's actions in the Middle East during the Cold War, when we were willing to perform acts of unspeakable dishonor and treat the local population like annoying prairie dogs messing up our god-given oil wells, and assert that the USA bears a considerable burden of contributory negligence for what has been happening since then, including 9/11.

Fraggle, is it your methodology to overwhelm people with so much bullshit, so many words and so much ennuendo that they're so flabbergasted that they not only can't read it all, but they're too overwhelmed to respond? ...and thus you think you win the argument? ..LOL!

This is a message board, Fraggle, not a stepping stone to become one of the members of fuckin', stupid, idiotic, word-machines like the UN!!!

Baron Max

The top 5 arms dealers in the world are America, China, France, Great Britain and Germany.

Make that Russia instead of China, and you got it right... :)

Baron Max: "so many words and so much ennuendo that they're so flabbergasted that they not only can't read it all, but they're too overwhelmed to respond?

Speak for yourself. I found Fraggle's post fairly brief, topical, and easy to comprehend. As he mentioned, reality isn't so simple- but with less resignation and a little effort in understanding you might be surprised to gain an insight or two instead of making some tangent cop-out about the UN, intellectuals, etc. I don't think Fraggle is here to "win" anything, but you just capitulated without even trying.

I found Fraggle's post fairly brief, topical, and easy to comprehend.

Sure, 'cause ye're just fuckin' like him!! Both of you are in some kind of contest to see who can type up more bullshit, but make it seem as if you really know what ye're talking about ....by using big, words and long, involved sentences.

If the bear shit in the woods, just say, "The bear shit in the woods" ...there ain't no need to go into some long, drawn-out, complex sentences to make the point.

Baron Max

"Sure, 'cause ye're just fuckin' like him!!"

Thanks, but if you'd been paying attention lately you'd realize we have serious differences. We can't help if we make it show, and if those big words come right out. Big Time.

Make that Russia instead of China, and you got it right... :)
Quite right. My apologies - China is 6th. I don't make a habit of googling my facts before posting.
Still, it changes nothing. China, incidentally, is making relationship inroads into Africa, so is likely to head further up that list in a few years.