Insane EU favors ending arms embargo on China

[soylentgreen]

French President Jacques Chirac was in Japan this past weekend lobbying the Japanese to end the arms embargo on China. I guess the EU thinks it's a good idea to have a more heavily armed China. Does anyone else think this is complete insanity? Well, Japan does not agree...probably because the need to live so close to an ever more belligerent China. No surprise there.

Amazingly, Richard Gere, of all people is speaking out in Japan against ending the embargo.

Any of you European citizens care to comment on why your governments think a more armed China is a good thing?

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content...at=9&id=332102

[Feenix566]

We should make a rule: you can't buy military equipment unless you were elected by your people.

And yes, that includes sales from Israel!

[soylentgreen]

It is truly amazing that anyone would want to sell arms to China. The funny thing is the peace-niks in France who opposed war in Iraq at all costs now want to proliferate weapons in the Far East. Why? Either you're against war or you're not. Oh, wait, maybe they're just against whatever America does...maybe they're not as peace-loving as they've made themselves out to be. Of course, with France losing out on their illegal oil supply from Iraq, I guess they figure they can replace that cash flow by selling weapons to China.

[Feenix566]

France needs the money. All their social programs are crippling their economy.

[thumper]

Clinton sold ICBM's to China for a few million, the US government subsidizes businesses to outsource their businesses abroad, and of course the border remains wide open while we remain internal check points in middle America.

What else is new?

Everything we see playing out before us is a total farce. Try reading the alternative media to get hip to what's really going on.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

It is truly amazing that anyone would want to sell arms to China. The funny thing is the peace-niks in France who opposed war in Iraq at all costs now want to proliferate weapons in the Far East. Why? Either you're against war or you're not.

No, the French saw through the lies of the Bush administration with respect to that particular war. They also had agreements in place with the Iraqi regime that, should the sanctions end, they'd have access to Iraqi oil fields. No one outside the United States sees anything wrong with the French objections to this war of choice by the US.

Oh, wait, maybe they're just against whatever America does...

France isn't the only nation to be "against" America breaking international laws and run roughshod over sovereign nations to establish military bases and to install "friendly" regimes.

Please comment on this:

http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Co...ges/france.htm

maybe they're not as peace-loving as they've made themselves out to be.

Maybe you have bought into the Freedom Fries nonsense and haven't actually examined the issues.

[Feenix566]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

America breaking international laws

There's no such thing as international laws. There is no one-world-government, and there never will be.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by Feenix566

There's no such thing as international laws. There is no one-world-government, and there never will be.

Horse****. Of course there are international laws. There are agreements between civilized nations about such things as borders, fishing limits, airspace, trade and so on.

Countries that do not abide by these international agreements, codified by them signing treaties and the like, are the true rogues, the true danger to the world.

[I don't know]

There are international laws and they are ratified by the US.

On topic: I am now just a tad more against the EU. And very curious on what excuse they have.

[Feenix566]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

Horse****. Of course there are international laws. There are agreements between civilized nations about such things as borders, fishing limits, airspace, trade and so on.

Countries that do not abide by these international agreements, codified by them signing treaties and the like, are the true rogues, the true danger to the world.

Well then maybe you could point out what treaty the US violated by invading Iraq?

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by Feenix566

Well then maybe you could point out what treaty the US violated by invading Iraq?

The UN Charter Treaty, which became the law of the land when the US signed it. By invading Iraq in the way it did under the circumstance it did, the US violated several articles of the US Charter Treaty, summarized nicely here:

http://www.thefourreasons.org/iraqinvasion.html

[oki]

im from the EU and I say they are a bunch of idiots. selling weapons to china is a very bad idea. its all about money, ofcourse.

[Myrddin]

The new law China passed on Taiwanese independence will probably delay any decision for a year but ultimately it was the EU who put the ban in place and it’s up to the EU to decide when they will remove it.
As I said in another thread it isn't about arming China it is about opening the way for new trade deals (which is something the US is also very interested in with regards China.)

I personally am against getting rid of the ban with out substantial improvement in the human rights situation in China unless there are major restrictions on arms sales staying in place after the ban is lifted.

[Stone]

Originally Posted by thumper

Clinton sold ICBM's to China for a few million

Do you have a reasonable, unbiased source to back up that statement? I would like to see the news source that covered that.


It's completely understandable that France and the EU would want to diversify their portfolio of friends in such uncertain times. France gets an up-and-comming superpower friend and some cash to boot - what's not to like? I absolutely do not agree with their actions, but I understand where they're comming from.

I wholeheartedly agree with Feenix's "new rule" about sales to democratic nations only (but i think Israel should be excluded from this list due to the volitility in the region). On second thought, I would like to refine this rule to allow weapons sales only to democratic countries in stable regions of the world, such as europe and parts of south america.

[thumper]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/143258.shtml

A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army.

According to the State Department, the most serious violations occurred when Hughes gave the Chinese army information that supported its analyses of the investigation of the January 1995 failure of the launch of a China Long March 2E (LM-2E) rocket carrying the Hughes-manufactured ASTAR II commercial communications satellite.

[ironwest]

Originally Posted by Myrddin

I personally am against getting rid of the ban with out substantial improvement in the human rights situation in China unless there are major restrictions on arms sales staying in place after the ban is lifted.

There are restrictions even after the ban is lifted. With WMD all over the place, what can conventional weapon do? With regards to Taiwan, China decision to fight will not change with or without European weapon.

[Myrddin]

Originally Posted by ironwest

There are restrictions even after the ban is lifted.

I know, but the exact nature of these restrictions is not clear yet.

With WMD all over the place, what can conventional weapon do? With regards to Taiwan, China decision to fight will not change with or without European weapon.

True, China is spending a lot on R&D and is getting weapons from many sources as it is so they will continue to advance with or with a ban.

[IFF]

i'm totally opposed to ending the arms embargo on china.; it is the wrong move

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

No, the French saw through the lies of the Bush administration with respect to that particular war.

You proceed from the mistaken conclusion that I'm here to defend Bush and the war in Iraq.

The question is, what would France think about a war perpetrated by the Chinese with French-made weapons? Say, for instance, China uses French weapons against Taiwan? I guess France will oppose the Chinese action in the Security Council, but will laugh all the way to the bank with their blood-stained cash. Seems to me that the French really just oppose a war when they are cut out of making money on it.

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

They also had agreements in place with the Iraqi regime that, should the sanctions end, they'd have access to Iraqi oil fields.

Oh, now we see the real reasons why France opposed the removal of Saddam! I thought only the "evil" United States wanted Iraqi oil...

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

No one outside the United States sees anything wrong with the French objections to this war of choice by the US.

In the end, it seems like their objections had little effect anyway.

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

France isn't the only nation to be "against" America breaking international laws and run roughshod over sovereign nations to establish military bases and to install "friendly" regimes.

I do not necessarily support the war in Iraq, but there is something people here need to realize. What Bush did is what nations have been doing since the birth of nations. In fact, I think it was the European nations who elevated it to an art form for the first time.

The fact is, weaker nations have always been at the mercy of stronger ones. I suspect that will never change. What a nation has a right to do has less to do with any laws or sovereignty, but instead what they can get away with. That is reality. The reality is that America will get away with what has transpired in Iraq. Why? Because no other nation has the ability or will to stand up and stop it.

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

Maybe you have bought into the Freedom Fries nonsense and haven't actually examined the issues.

As I have said, I do not necessarily agreed with the war. However, prior to the war, EVERYONE agreed Saddam was a problem. Yet, a decade of sanctions had little effect on inducing Saddam to change his ways. In fact, I suggest that the sanctions killed far more Iraqis over that period than the war did.

So, my question to you is: If everyone agree that Saddam was a problem and if it is clear the sanctions were inneffective, what should have been done about Saddam? What were the realistic alterantives to war? I have not heard the French or anyone else answer that question.

I have to give GWB one credit...that is at least he finally stood up and had the balls to actually do something about Saddam.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by thumper

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/143258.shtml

This is all true. I thought it was common knowledge. My personal feeling is that Clinton and the decision-makers at Hughes should all be brought up on charges of treason.