NationStates Jolt Archive

Now how dumb can the EU get with arms sales to China. Most of these arms will come from our good buddies France(Chirac). Doesnt these peope realise that it may start a very large war in the Pacific. Now that China can buy Euro hardware and tech. (Instead of stealing it) They just may want to take on Taiwan that has been buying US hardware for years. So if Taiwan attacked most of the Pacific nations will be at war against China. Not a good scenerio. Right now Japan is talking of changing there constitution to build up an offensive capability. They will buy US arms of course. They are also contemplating nukes. Since good ole N Korea has em. Thanks to some Euro nations and of course China. So what happens when you get a arms race in Asia? Wow you guessed it! WAR! Now hopefully better thinking will prevail. But I think this is the "Long March" toward war. Not looking at all forward to this prospect. Thanks for nothing Chirac!

France sells arms, the US sells arms - that's the way capitalism works. Now both sides have them. Why aren't you ranting against the US as well? They've been a major contributor to most wars in the past century.

France sells arms, the US sells arms - that's the way capitalism works. Now both sides have them. Why aren't you ranting against the US as well? They've been a major contributor to most wars in the past century.


US is selling arms to people that have to protect them damn selves from Soviet weaponry. Mostly Tawain and Israel come to mind. Plus of course our "favorite allies" French not included. All those wars you talk about was the US most likely selling arms so the said country could survive. UK,WWII Russia, WWII China.
Capitalism in arms sales needs some thought put behind it. Also a war in the pacific will entangle Europe. Think again if Europeans will be sitting out of it.

That's a very blinkered view of the world. The other "side" could use precisely the same argument as you do, with just as much justification.

The real reason, however, is that arms manufacturers will sell to anyone who pays their price. The US, Russia, France, and Great Britain have all shown that numerous times over the years. Political ideology rarely, if ever, seems to come into the equation.

I agree fully. Arms sales to China now seems fairly harmless, but China has not sufficiently shown itself to be a non-aggressive power. Moreover, its frequently as beligerent as the US is accused of being; I ask the Europeans: do you really need ANOTHER beligerent military power in the world?

Its scary to think of just how short-sighted this move by the EU is. Removing the arms restrictions on China now sends the wrong messege to Beijing. Closing the technology gap between China and Taiwan doesn't create parity, it creates imbalance!

Taiwan only has a chance against China if its tiny armed forces can hold off the vast armies of China through superior technology; without this edge, the calculus of the situation becomes drastically different. China would be able to comptemplate military action as an acceptable means of resolving the issue again.

Bad, bad, bad. This is a bad idea with far-reaching implications. I'm convinced the EU is doing this because it figures it has far fewer interests in Asia than the US, and a rising China would tie down US power. The result will likely be increased tensions in the area unless China takes the unbelievable step of remaining peaceful despite its military dominance.

That's a very blinkered view of the world. The other "side" could use precisely the same argument as you do, with just as much justification.

The real reason, however, is that arms manufacturers will sell to anyone who pays their price. The US, Russia, France, and Great Britain have all shown that numerous times over the years. Political ideology rarely, if ever, seems to come into the equation.


Just because Soviets could use that argument doesn't made them equally as correct. This is a major problem that could end up dissolving NATO and letting Taiwan fall to China.

They will buy US arms of course. They are also contemplating nukes. Since good ole N Korea has em. Thanks to some Euro nations and of course China. So what happens when you get a arms race in Asia? Wow you guessed it! WAR! Now hopefully better thinking will prevail. But I think this is the "Long March" toward war. Not looking at all forward to this prospect. Thanks for nothing Chirac!

There was a massive arms race between the US and Russia, and they never went to war.

Besides, China has no reason to go to war with anyone, its growth, security, and prosperity is ensured as is.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.

Way to ensure your point is taken seriously, not.

What happens if the PRC goes after Taiwan? Or India? Or Indo-China? China is a nation with two very, very dangerous things going for it, a strong sense of nationalism and an increasingly disproportionate amount of young males in the population. An economy that is currently growing rapidly (even if it is based almost entirely off of foreign investment) is also a driving impetus for China to go for more resources.

Of course, if China goes against basically any of these nations (espescially Taiwan) we could and probably would see a US reaction, probably involving US Carrier Battle Groups scrubbing the People's Liberation Army Navy from the Pacific, and our attack subs taking out the Chinese nuclear missile subs.

We'd probably see aerial combat between the vast (if old) Chinese Air Force and the air forces of the nations arrayed against it. With the technological superiority of the coalition air forces we could probably expect a coalition air victory in the first two months.

After which point it gets hairy. The coalition won't want to go into mainland China, that's a deathtrap, and the Chinese will only have their ICBM's as a form of global power projection, but the coalition will have a naval blockade, and the ability to deny foreign investment to China. They will also have the nuclear arsenal of the US, strategic bomber bases in Japan and on Guam and all sorts of other things.

What happens, I cannot tell, but EU weapons in the hands of the Chinese would just prolong this hypothetical conflict. No evidence that it will actually occur, but this seems to be how most folks think it would play out.

Why do Americans assume that every other country really wants to start a war, if only they had the right weapons?

There was a massive arms race between the US and Russia, and they never went to war.

Besides, China has no reason to go to war with anyone, its growth, security, and prosperity is ensured as is.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.
Indeed, they just had a long series of proxy-wars in several areas, along with the massive paranoia associated with looming nuclear holocaust.

China doesnt NEED a reason. Same as the US. They want influence and political power, which you cant get just by economic superiority, not to mention the fact that most Asian nations have long standing grudges against most other Asian nations.

I hate people who think that the US never landed on the moon and that the Holocaust never happened, but I dont flame them when they post.

Why do Americans assume that every other country really wants to start a war, if only they had the right weapons?
I'm not saying that China wants to start a war, I really don't think they do, and it's against their national interests, but it's still amusing to game out scenarios.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.
That's wunnerful, take flaming elsewhere.

Why do Americans assume that every other country really wants to start a war, if only they had the right weapons?

Bullsh*t. Please remain realistic about this situation, rather than falling into nationalistic fervor.

Look at the facts Monkeypimp:

China has announced, publicly and repeatedly that it has not ruled out use of force in resolving the Taiwan issue. As recently as November of last year the Chinese military conducted wargames near the Taiwanese strait. Policy papers indicating a "decapitaion strike" against Taiwan were being planned in the event of military conflict.

China has also maintained control over Tibet, a nation that is cuturally and geographically seperate and distinct from China. It has engaged in the subjegation of Tibetian culture, repressing the Buddhist monks and leading the religion's leaders into exile.

China has engaged in multiple border wars with its neighbor India within the past 30 years, some of those disputes remain unresolved as well. Also off of India's northern Border Maoist rebels have been fighting for several years, all but replacing the government of Nepal.

You're gonna tell me that China has no history of aggression towards its neighbors? It's started wars WITHOUT that technology already, why should the EU make it easier and more desireable for such a nation to go to war?

EDIT: Note, China HAS made great strides, don't get me wrong. I don't want to seem Xenophobic, but the simple fact of the matter is that China has/was/is Aggressive, and giving them state-of-the-art weaponry isn't going to help things any.

Please, the US has been selling stuff to China for years, one example that comes to mind is electronics for fighter aircraft such as the J-8-II "Finback".

It's OK when the US does it, isn't it?

The United States continues to sell arms to Pakistan, Israel, India, Indonesia and Syria.

The United States has sold arms in the past to Iran, Iraq, Afghan rebels (the Northern Alliance), not to mention any number of incredibly brutal regimes in the 3rd world on the basis that at the time they were neccessary as a bulwark against communism.

Whether they were right or not - if your point is that this endangers national security, get off your high horse. If your point is that they are a brutal, repressive regime who don't deserve arms, get off your high horse.

Arms races are bad - yes - but China can already produce nukes, chemical weapons, and buy just about anything from Russia - the arms race is already happening. It's better though, that China forms long-term trading relationships with us, because if you constructively engage with a country instead of bullying and isolating them then they are more likely to be receptive to things like civil reform, trade liberalisation etc etc etc.

I'm not saying its a good policy - but it certainly isn't obviously stupid.

Now why would China need to buy arms, they already have a billion people, that's at least 2 billion arms in the country.

No one is condoning US arms sales to those various nations, we are just talking about EU arms sales to China, simply because it is a fairly recent development. That's all.

Now why would China need to buy arms, they already have a billion people, that's at least 2 billion arms in the country.
So they can get 2,000,000,001 arms :D

Ok, the united states TRAINED osama bin laden. to kill. they also sold iraq and iran weapons during the war between those nations. look where those decisions have got us?

Bullsh*t. Please remain realistic about this situation, rather than falling into nationalistic fervor.

Look at the facts Monkeypimp:

China has announced, publicly and repeatedly that it has not ruled out use of force in resolving the Taiwan issue. As recently as November of last year the Chinese military conducted wargames near the Taiwanese strait. Policy papers indicating a "decapitaion strike" against Taiwan were being planned in the event of military conflict.

China has also maintained control over Tibet, a nation that is cuturally and geographically seperate and distinct from China. It has engaged in the subjegation of Tibetian culture, repressing the Buddhist monks and leading the religion's leaders into exile.

China has engaged in multiple border wars with its neighbor India within the past 30 years, some of those disputes remain unresolved as well. Also off of India's northern Border Maoist rebels have been fighting for several years, all but replacing the government of Nepal.

You're gonna tell me that China has no history of aggression towards its neighbors? It's started wars WITHOUT that technology already, why should the EU make it easier and more desireable for such a nation to go to war?

EDIT: Note, China HAS made great strides, don't get me wrong. I don't want to seem Xenophobic, but the simple fact of the matter is that China has/was/is Aggressive, and giving them state-of-the-art weaponry isn't going to help things any.

Indeed, I had forgotten about Tibet. I will begin protesting my own govts attempts at getting a free trade deal with china right away.

There was a massive arms race between the US and Russia, and they never went to war.

Besides, China has no reason to go to war with anyone, its growth, security, and prosperity is ensured as is.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.

Tell that to the Tibetans. Or the South Koreans. :rolleyes:

I'm not paranoid of China. But I think it's bad policy to sell weapons to a government that shoots it's own folks.

There was a massive arms race between the US and Russia, and they never went to war.

Besides, China has no reason to go to war with anyone, its growth, security, and prosperity is ensured as is.

And on a more insignificant note, I hate xenophobic Americans that are paranoid of China and disdainful of France, so fuck you.

Again this shows how much of a dumbass some outsiders can be. First off the US and Soviet Union almost came to all out war on several occasions. Cuban missle crisis and two other incidents where computer malfunctions nearly created a missle launch.

Problem with being American being somewhat xenophobic. Because my parents and grandparents had to go bail out certain other countries in previous wars. Including but not only China. I am personally fed up with others creating messes and US cleaning them up.

As an military historian major. I know a bit more than your average person. So I can put two and two together and come out with possible scenerios. China is not yet a mature power. They can lash out unanounced yet again. Remember the korean war.

As far as you saying FU. Shows yet again the ignorance of your statement. As an American I have every right to call France out. They have had an anti-American agenda since the end of there liberation by Anglo-American armies.

...that could end up dissolving NATO... NATO is going..sooner or Later..

rip NATO

US is selling arms to people that have to protect them damn selves from Soviet weapondry. Mostly Tawain and Israel come to mind. Plus of course our "favorite allies" French not included. All those wars you talk about was the US most likely selling arms so the said country could survive. UK,WWII Russia, WWII China.
Capitalism in arms sales needs some thought put behind it. Also a war in the pacific will entangle Europe. Think again if Europeans will be sitting out of it.
*nudges Thelona and does the drinking motion and points to Marrakech

Ok, the united states TRAINED osama bin laden. to kill. they also sold iraq and iran weapons during the war between those nations. look where those decisions have got us?

At the time Osama was a no-name fighting a proxy war against the Soviets. I dont see all the mujhadeen fight the US. Bin-Laden would have done this either way.
Weapons were sold to Iraq to counter Iran in yet another proxy war. Not that these are good ideas now. But at the time things made a bit more sense. Most of you might not even be old enough to remember the back stories to these things. Happened 25 years ago.

Honestly, the United States and the rest of the developed world have nothing to fear from China currently, or in the next decade. What the trade agreement between the EU and China has done has two effects.

First off, if China decides for whatever moronic reason, to go to war in the Pacific, they will be upsetting the world balance. As World War One showed us, the complex web of alliances in the world will drag the entire globe into a single confrontation against China. China is not a fully industrialized nation, and as such is at a major disadvantage against nations such as the US or all of Europe. This is tactically a horrible idea.

Point two: the arms agreement has made China dependant on the EU economically. If China steps out of line for one minute, the EU will cut off Beijing and their economy (which will already be faultering due to paying for a war) will dive bomb and crash.

My conclusion is that this has done nothing except bring a billion people out of the 20th century equivalent of the Dark Ages. Quit your worrying, we'll be fine.

Honestly, the United States and the rest of the developed world have nothing to fear from China currently, or in the next decade. What the trade agreement between the EU and China has done has two effects.

First off, if China decides for whatever moronic reason, to go to war in the Pacific, they will be upsetting the world balance. As World War One showed us, the complex web of alliances in the world will drag the entire globe into a single confrontation against China. China is not a fully industrialized nation, and as such is at a major disadvantage against nations such as the US or all of Europe. This is tactically a horrible idea.

Point two: the arms agreement has made China dependant on the EU economically. If China steps out of line for one minute, the EU will cut off Beijing and their economy (which will already be faultering due to paying for a war) will dive bomb and crash.

My conclusion is that this has done nothing except bring a billion people out of the 20th century equivalent of the Dark Ages. Quit your worrying, we'll be fine.
Well I hope this works out like you just laid out. But 1st problem is that China will get the tech. Instead of trying to spend billions of development and or stealing it from the west. This is a huge advantage to China. Really huge. But who said that wars were thought out before they were fought. You get a lunatic ruler and look what happens. We have enough examples in history to back up my point.

*nudges Thelona and does the drinking motion and points to Marrakech

takes a drink and passes it back to I hate cows. Says thanks for the hootch.

The United States continues to sell arms to Pakistan, Israel, India, Indonesia and Syria.

The United States has sold arms in the past to Iran, Iraq, Afghan rebels (the Northern Alliance), not to mention any number of incredibly brutal regimes in the 3rd world on the basis that at the time they were neccessary as a bulwark against communism.

1) When the US sold arms to Iran, it was to the Shah, a friendly government.
2) When the US sold arms to Iraq, it was a friendly government.
3) Israel and Indonesia have been US friendly since their formations post-WW2.
...to call any of these arms sales questionable is not reasonable.

4) The US has *NEVER* sold arms to Syria. But China has. As well as to , Iran, and Libya -- all within the last 3 years.

5) The arms sales to India was (2004) for a whole $18 million USD. Hardly a major move, given the $300m Pakistan recieved (mostly for being a solid ally during the Afghanistan conflict).

As an military historian major. I know a bit more than your average person.
...
As an American I have every right to call France out.
calling them is not gonna do it
Talk is cheap

when are you (American Military) going to Invade or Bomb the shit out of France...

I mean
"They always lose wars"
and
"They always surrender"

show us how powerfull the US military is...Forget Syria or Iran

go for France...I cant wait.

*wonders How to say "Bring it on" in french* :D

China has announced, publicly and repeatedly that it has not ruled out use of force in resolving the Taiwan issue. As recently as November of last year the Chinese military conducted wargames near the Taiwanese strait. Policy papers indicating a "decapitaion strike" against Taiwan were being planned in the event of military conflict.

The US recently used military force against a non-agressive sovereign nation (Iraq).

China has also maintained control over Tibet, a nation that is cuturally and geographically seperate and distinct from China. It has engaged in the subjegation of Tibetian culture, repressing the Buddhist monks and leading the religion's leaders into exile.

The US has done the same to sovereign American Indian nations.

China has engaged in multiple border wars with its neighbor India within the past 30 years, some of those disputes remain unresolved as well. Also off of India's northern Border Maoist rebels have been fighting for several years, all but replacing the government of Nepal.

CIA funding of guerrillas in Central America? Bay of Pigs?

You're gonna tell me that China has no history of aggression towards its neighbors? It's started wars WITHOUT that technology already, why should the EU make it easier and more desireable for such a nation to go to war?

Because it has the right to. Any nation that claims they do not is guilty of imperialism, to which has been attributed the majority of wars. So perhaps we're all better off just letting each other do what is with in their rights as a sovereign nation. That is, let any nation do anything that doesn't infringe on another nation's rights

I'm not paranoid of China. But I think it's bad policy to sell weapons to a government that shoots it's own folks.

Then no one should sell weapons to anyone. I like that idea, admittedly.

As for China buying weapons from the EU:

China's central governement has repeatedly stated that the purchasing of arms is something they believe to be a hallmark of a developed nation, and in a sense, they are right. EVERY developed nation does devote some of its energy to national defense, and China's IS underdeveloped, despite having the world's largest army. It's probably the world's largest ILL-EQUIPPED army, so like any good nation trying to prove first-world status...they start to equip themselves accordingly.

If China ends up needing an army, it won't be to cause aggression with its neighbors. There is too much economically and politically at stake to do that. It is more likely to need such an army to prtect itself internally. I can see a number of areas in China that require control, though the government has been reticent on that matter. I think that few countries in the world have much to worry about in terms of this issue, though China's autonomous regions I do fear for.

Ge-Ren

Why do Americans assume that every other country really wants to start a war, if only they had the right weapons?

History shows that this is a fact if you have a advantage over an enemy. You kick him in the balls. 200k years of human history should tell you that.

Why do Americans assume that every other country really wants to start a war, if only they had the right weapons?
It's founded upon our belief in Roosevelt's big-stick principle. If you are the biggest kid on the block, you win the fights you get into.

Marrakech and Markreich, you have to understand that people aren't arguing in favor of selling arms to China, they're arguing against the moral defensibility of one nation telling another nation whom they can and cannot sell arms to. The truth is that the USA has in the past and is currently selling arms to questionable regimes, and since it has made that particular bed, it must lie in it.

And Markreich, don't pretend that the USA doesn't murder its own citizens. The current president has in fact put many citizens to death.

It's founded upon our belief in Roosevelt's big-stick principle. If you are the biggest kid on the block, you win the fights you get into.

Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten the 'speak softly' part of that particular principle.

Marrakech and Markreich, you have to understand that people aren't arguing in favor of selling arms to China, they're arguing against the moral defensibility of one nation telling another nation whom they can and cannot sell arms to. The truth is that the USA has in the past and is currently selling arms to questionable regimes, and since it has made that particular bed, it must lie in it.

And Markreich, don't pretend that the USA doesn't murder its own citizens. The current president has in fact put many citizens to death.


I understand your point and others. But we are in fact arguing that the EU shouldnt in good judgement be selling high tech arms to whomever. This isnt a situation of selling them automatic rifles and bullets. We are talking top line equipment. We as the US are asking the EU not to sell these high tech arms to potential advisaries. Simple as that. Although if it goes through it may cause a bunch of problems not excluding an Asian arms race. A potential for war will exist. Which will drag the Europeans into it.

As far as the quote about the US president. Show some class and respect for the dead. I assume you mean US soldiers. If you are talking about Texas death penalty. That is Texas law as it is in my state. Those people were put to death because they deserve it. It takes years for the death penalty to be put into action. After years of appeals for the most part. We in the US dont take death lightly. Never have never will.

Marrakech and Markreich, you have to understand that people aren't arguing in favor of selling arms to China, they're arguing against the moral defensibility of one nation telling another nation whom they can and cannot sell arms to. The truth is that the USA has in the past and is currently selling arms to questionable regimes, and since it has made that particular bed, it must lie in it.

And Markreich, don't pretend that the USA doesn't murder its own citizens. The current president has in fact put many citizens to death.

Um, if you note my post above, my point was to contradict some errornous post about US arms sales. I'm not for selling arms to China by the EU. I'm not saying that the US is angelic. But I *am* saying that the post I replied to was not accurate.
And, are you aware WHY no one has sold arms to China in over a decade? That little Tianamen Square incident. Now France seems to think that China has "worked out that little issue". Sorry, but given the Falung Gong question and Tibet, I don't buy it.

Care to name one? And do be specific.

China luckily is also a country that does not agree at all with what the North Koreans are doing. So in a sense having Huge red ass china right next to north korea and always engaging in talks with them while the U.S. is more focused on other issues, China is somewhat saving our asses, with controlling the actions of North Korea. True china does not like South Korea, but they like them a hell of a lot more than they like North Korea, due to all the buisness they have with South Korea.

China also knows the implacations of going to war with Taiwan, and how that will forever spell economic sanctions, and lack of any sort of buisness what so ever with the capitalistic countrys in the world. So until china really becomes its own self sustaining government that can show the world that they can take on the U.S. (which at that point we will have nothing to do with Taiwan)...which wont happen if ever for many years to come, (the economies of our two countries still has a very large gap) we wont have to fear anything, and in the meantime we can probably settle issues with china.

Just hope that they dont become super powerful in 4 or less years, because Bush is not gonna settle things with China thats for damn sure. He likes to tuck his tail and run from problems that he knows he wont win easily with an awsome Shock and Awe method.

Giving the last communist power high tech arms is a very very bad idea. I'm not going to say we are perfect because we aren't. But people should learn from the past and realize wait a minute, China might cause a world War 3 if they have the right weapons. You are probably saying "WW3 ? What are you talking about?". Well the facts are there, Syria and Iran forming alliances against the west. How much more incentive does China need to ally with Iran? They are against us, they have nuclear weapons, and they have an oppressive regime like they do. Try and picture a China, armed with the latest in military technology with Iran, Syria and maybe evan North Korea in an alliance against the U.S.A. The results would be disasterous....

I understand your point and others. But we are in fact arguing that the EU shouldnt in good judgement be selling high tech arms to whomever.

My mistake. I do realize now that you were not advocating sanctions against the EU, unlike our US congress, which threatened sanctions in recent legislation. That would be inappropriate and hypocritical.

If you are talking about Texas death penalty. That is Texas law as it is in my state. Those people were put to death because they deserve it. It takes years for the death penalty to be put into action. After years of appeals for the most part. We in the US dont take death lightly. Never have never will.

I was in fact talking about the death penalty, although the Iraq war was unnecessary and questionably legal. But the argument that it is justifiable to murder people for violating US law is not applicable. After all, don't you think that Chinese people are only put to death for violating Chinese law? Perhaps also in riot actions, such as Tiananmen. But do you remember the incident at Kent State? How many black panthers have been killed by riot police or intelligence organizations? Not to mention Martin Luther King, Jr. Don't you think that if Americans rioted or protested as often as Chinese do, there would be more Americans killed by the government?

Care to name one? And do be specific.

Are you asking me to list Americans who have been murdered by the government? Here is a link that lists 338:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

And that is only in Texas. I'm not saying that China fosters respect for all human beings. That would be a futile point to argue. I'm just saying that it is morally indefensible for a regime with a spotty human rights record such as USA to criticize China's human rights record, and it is plain arrogant for USA to infringe on another nation's rights at the same time.

I was in fact talking about the death penalty, although the Iraq war was unnecessary and questionably legal. But the argument that it is justifiable to murder people for violating US law is not applicable. After all, don't you think that Chinese people are only put to death for violating Chinese law? Perhaps also in riot actions, such as Tiananmen. But do you remember the incident at Kent State? How many black panthers have been killed by riot police or intelligence organizations? Not to mention Martin Luther King, Jr. Don't you think that if Americans rioted or protested as often as Chinese do, there would be more Americans killed by the government?

* The death penalty has been shown to not be murder and upheld by the Supreme Court.

* KENT STATE WAS NOT federally government sactioned.

* MLK was shot by James Earl Ray.

Really? I wasn't aware that the US had to slaughter the LA rioters, or the (more recent) Cincinnati rioters... :rolleyes:

hey and if you're bored check out the racial and gender statistics for those on death row at that same link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm

and then reconcile them with cencus data for texas:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on

Why is that 75.1% of Texans are white, but only 30.8% percent of Texans who are scheduled to be murdered by their government are white?

But people should learn from the past and realize wait a minute, China might cause a world War 3 if they have the right weapons. You are probably saying "WW3 ? What are you talking about?". Well the facts are there, Syria and Iran forming alliances against the west. How much more incentive does China need to ally with Iran? They are against us, they have nuclear weapons, and they have an oppressive regime like they do. Try and picture a China, armed with the latest in military technology with Iran, Syria and maybe evan North Korea in an alliance against the U.S.A. The results would be disasterous....

You've really bought into Dubya's "Axis of Evil" bullshit, haven't you?

China is ATM totally dependent upon foreign investment in order to sustain economic development, is disparaging of what it calls "Muslim troublemakers," and has no desire to make an enemy out of one its most economically viable trading partners, the US of A. Open your eyes man, go read something, and take a long hard look at facts.

Geez, no wonder Bush was re-elected. Fear does weird shit to people.

Ge-Ren

Are you asking me to list Americans who have been murdered by the government? Here is a link that lists 338:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

And that is only in Texas. I'm not saying that China fosters respect for all human beings. That would be a futile point to argue. I'm just saying that it is morally indefensible for a regime with a spotty human rights record such as USA to criticize China's human rights record, and it is plain arrogant for USA to infringe on another nation's rights at the same time.

Um, I hate to point this out, but not a single one of those people were shot in the street like at Tiannamen Square for protesting for their rights. You're comparing apples to chia pets.

I'll go one further: not a single one of those were chosen for death by a sitting Governor. They were sentanced to death by JUDGES. After TRIALS.

China's human rights record to America's human rights record is as Taco Bell is to Morton's Steakhouse.

Who's infringing? The US is asking for Europe to uphold a ban that has been in effect for over 15 years.

hey and if you're bored check out the racial and gender statistics for those on death row at that same link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm

and then reconcile them with cencus data for texas:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on

Why is that 75.1% of Texans are white, but only 30.8% percent of Texans who are scheduled to be murdered by their government are white?

Better question: what is the racial proportions of the Texan penetentiary system?

* The death penalty has been shown to not be murder and upheld by the Supreme Court.

This must be what Rush is talking about when he complains of activist judges. Just curious, when exactly did the supreme court rule on this issue?

* KENT STATE WAS NOT federally government sactioned.

Then why did national guardsmen kill several students?

* MLK was shot by James Earl Ray.

Then why does King's family believe that Ray was innocent? Have you done any research on this topic? Just figure out what position Ray physically must have been in to shoot MLK from that window.

Really? I wasn't aware that the US had to slaughter the LA rioters, or the (more recent) Cincinnati rioters... :rolleyes:

Do you think that no one died in those riots?

Now how dumb can the EU get with arms sales to China. Most of these arms will come from our good buddies France(Chirac). Doesnt these peope realise that it may start a very large war in the Pacific. Now that China can buy Euro hardware and tech. (Instead of stealing it) They just may want to take on Taiwan that has been buying US hardware for years. So if Taiwan attacked most of the Pacific nations will be at war against China. Not a good scenerio. Right now Japan is talking of changing there constitution to build up an offensive capability. They will buy US arms of course. They are also contemplating nukes. Since good ole N Korea has em. Thanks to some Euro nations and of course China. So what happens when you get a arms race in Asia? Wow you guessed it! WAR! Now hopefully better thinking will prevail. But I think this is the "Long March" toward war. Not looking at all forward to this prospect. Thanks for nothing Chirac!
Hey it is all about money....always has been.

From 1993 through 1997, the U.S. sold the world with $53 billion of arms, whereas the next 19 suppliers together sold $54 billion. In Fiscal Year 1998, new sales totaled $8.23 billion to 103 nations, including such notorious rights violators as Turkey ($240 million), Ethiopia ($10 million), and Peru ($4.3 million).

In areas of global tension-e.g. the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, the southern cone of South America-the U.S. pours in arms, making the situation more volatile and the violence more deadly. In the poorest nations of the world-e.g. Chad and Haiti-the U.S. drains development resources by encouraging acquisition of weapons. Where there is grassroots opposition to transnational corporations and the governmental elites that cooperate with them-e.g. El Salvador and Mexico-the U.S. supplies arms to suppress and terrorize free speech and association.

Next.

Who's infringing? The US is asking for Europe to uphold a ban that has been in effect for over 15 years.

Do your homework, man. Bush threatened sanctions against the EU

And, if you'll take the time to read my posts, you'll notice that I have considered that a judge ordering citizens to die and a soldier killing citizens on the street are worthing of differentiating between. At the same time, they are both situations in which a government murders its citizens and the US government has done both of them.

This must be what Rush is talking about when he complains of activist judges. Just curious, when exactly did the supreme court rule on this issue?

There are several here: http://www.usscplus.com/current/ , where the SC tacitly approves of the death penalty.

As recently as 2002, the SC decided that only trials by jury could have access to the death penalty.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/24/scotus.executions/


Then why did national guardsmen kill several students?

Because they were called out by the GOVERNOR, not the US Gov't.
Further, it was never determined *why* the guard fired.
You may want to read up a bit: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html
Or, this version: http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/kentstate500.asp


Then why does King's family believe that Ray was innocent? Have you done any research on this topic? Just figure out what position Ray physically must have been in to shoot MLK from that window.

Don't know. Don't really care too much, either, as this one is leaning on conspiracy along the lines of JFK. The US Gov't certainly didn't authorize it as China did in TS.


Do you think that no one died in those riots?

I believe that no one was killed on the order of the US govenment, or by any US military personel. Can you prove otherwise?

This must be what Rush is talking about when he complains of activist judges. Just curious, when exactly did the supreme court rule on this issue?

There are several here: http://www.usscplus.com/current/ , where the SC tacitly approves of the death penalty.

As recently as 2002, the SC decided that only trials by jury could have access to the death penalty.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/24/scotus.executions/


Then why did national guardsmen kill several students?

Because they were called out by the GOVERNOR, not the US Gov't.
Further, it was never determined *why* the guard fired.
You may want to read up a bit: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html
Or, this version: http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/kentstate500.asp


Then why does King's family believe that Ray was innocent? Have you done any research on this topic? Just figure out what position Ray physically must have been in to shoot MLK from that window.

Don't know. Don't really care too much, either, as this one is leaning on conspiracy along the lines of JFK. The US Gov't certainly didn't authorize it as China did in TS.


Do you think that no one died in those riots?

I believe that no one was killed on the order of the US govenment, or by any US military personel. Can you prove otherwise?

This must be what Rush is talking about when he complains of activist judges. Just curious, when exactly did the supreme court rule on this issue?

There are several here: http://www.usscplus.com/current/ , where the SC tacitly approves of the death penalty.

As recently as 2002, the SC decided that only trials by jury could have access to the death penalty.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/24/scotus.executions/


Then why did national guardsmen kill several students?

Because they were called out by the GOVERNOR, not the US Gov't.
Further, it was never determined *why* the guard fired.
You may want to read up a bit: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html
Or, this version: http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/kentstate500.asp


Then why does King's family believe that Ray was innocent? Have you done any research on this topic? Just figure out what position Ray physically must have been in to shoot MLK from that window.

Don't know. Don't really care too much, either, as this one is leaning on conspiracy along the lines of JFK. The US Gov't certainly didn't authorize it as China did in TS.


Do you think that no one died in those riots?

I believe that no one was killed on the order of the US govenment, or by any US military personel. Can you prove otherwise?

hey and if you're bored check out the racial and gender statistics for those on death row at that same link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm

and then reconcile them with cencus data for texas:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on

Why is that 75.1% of Texans are white, but only 30.8% percent of Texans who are scheduled to be murdered by their government are white?


Well you just pointed out an alarming statistic that most Americans know already. A disporportionate amount of minorities are in prison compared to there population within the US. Why is that? Do we hate minorities? No, being one myself i dont agree with that arguement. The cold hard fact is that minorities cause more crime than there brethren. You can argue all you want about it. If you break it down every which way it still comes out with that fact. As a community our people need alot more work on this. Although I know that alot of property crime and crimes against people are commited by illegal immigrants from Mexico. Another fact that some find hard to believe. I will stop here because this is getting way off topic for this thread.

The US recently used military force against a non-agressive sovereign nation (Iraq).
The US has done the same to sovereign American Indian nations.
CIA funding of guerrillas in Central America? Bay of Pigs?

Because it has the right to. Any nation that claims they do not is guilty of imperialism, to which has been attributed the majority of wars. So perhaps we're all better off just letting each other do what is with in their rights as a sovereign nation. That is, let any nation do anything that doesn't infringe on another nation's rights

Right, thank you for pointing out the old and more recent sins of the US. Now tell me this; how the heck is that relevant to a discussion of arms deals between the EU and China?

For example, You say that its BECAUSE the US was acting aggressive that it attacked Iraq, but now you wish to give China that same ability? Why, do you think its a good thing that powerful nations act irresponibly?

You give bad examples as your justification for creating future bad examples. "That guy burned himself with fire, I'm not gonna give huge matches to this other guy who likes playing with fire!"

The US screwed over a bunch of people because it had massive military might and a history of being antagonistic to certain nations. Now you wish, in all honesty, to give China the SAME power, given ITS history? That's not non-interventionism, that's inviting a war to your own bloody doorstep!

Selling arms to China doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but invading another nation does. Arming a nation that then turns around and invades can't be seen as all that sound a judgement right?

I agree with Niccolo here.

BTW, Germany's Schroeder stated in this week's TIME magazine that Germany would not sell weapons to China. Wither France?

Hmm.

History shows that this is a fact if you have a advantage over an enemy. You kick him in the balls. 200k years of human history should tell you that.
No, this just isnt true. Not everyone who gained an advantage did consequently used it to go to war. You have a vast advantage over Cuba for example. Does the US kick Castros balls, just because they can? Obviously not.
On the other hand, is anyone as delusional that he thinks China could not take on Taiwan because of Taiwans technological advantage? They fear the repercussions on an economic level, but thats it.

The EU weapons Embargo on China was self imposed by the EU to itself after Tianammen square. No other country in the world, including Israel or Canada ceased selling weapons to China. So at the very least, we lose moral high ground to become as anyone else, so no one can attack the EU without being hypocrite;

About Technological transference.. well, that already happens with lots of Civilian tech, and no one complains, why should we complain about military tech? If China were to attack the US, even if it could win (highly improbable), it would go bankrupt. You may call them totalitarian, but they are not stupid.

The US complains about other peoples arms sales while it's private companies (the ones who help build it's military equipment) sell the technology to China for it's weapons. If the US is so strict on stopping Europe selling it's arms, clean your own act up first.

The EU weapons Embargo on China was self imposed by the EU to itself after Tianammen square. No other country in the world, including the USA or Canada ceased selling weapons to China. So at the very least, we lose moral high ground to become as anyone else, so no one can attack the EU without being hypocrite;

About Technological transference.. well, that already happens with lots of Civilian tech, and no one complains, why should we complain about military tech? If China were to attack the US, even if it could win (highly improbable), it would go bankrupt. You may call them totalitarian, but they are not stupid.

The United States does not sell high tech weapons to China. This statement that they do is absolutely false. There are alot of tech that the US doesnt sell the Chinese. The governemnt actually watches over and has to approve all sales to China. Specifically to watch for dual use tech. So get a clue before you post again.

The United States does not sell high tech weapons to China. This statement that they do is absolutely false. There are alot of tech that the US doesnt sell the Chinese. The governemnt actually watches over and has to approve all sales to China. Specifically to watch for dual use tech. So get a clue before you post again.


Granted. Not to China. Still, my reasoning maintains.

Ah yes, the US can sell weapons to countries that have to "protect" themselves, like Israel, which is really just protecting itself. But anyone else can't.

So the EU sells weapons to China. And that means what? A war in the pacific? Yeah right :rolleyes: Gawd... please... the Chinese at least didn't invade other countires during the past, let's say... 2 years just for the heck of it.

Apart from that, the US have absolutely no say about who the EU sells weapons to. That's not their fucking business. Europe doesn't belong to the US, tough luck. They should rather get their asses out of here. *demands that the US forces of occupation are removed from Europe*

The United States does not sell high tech weapons to China. This statement that they do is absolutely false. There are alot of tech that the US doesnt sell the Chinese. The governemnt actually watches over and has to approve all sales to China. Specifically to watch for dual use tech. So get a clue before you post again.

yeah, and it never sold weapons to Iran either.
or Iraq.
or Colombia.
or Nicaragua.
or the Taliban.
etc.
etc.

If you're the government, and you have shares in Lockheed, and your golf buddy, the CEO of Lockheed, says "hey, wanna approve my arms sales to China?" I guess you're going to say "no Bob, that would be immoral".

Honestly, the United States and the rest of the developed world have nothing to fear from China currently, or in the next decade. What the trade agreement between the EU and China has done has two effects.

First off, if China decides for whatever moronic reason, to go to war in the Pacific, they will be upsetting the world balance. As World War One showed us, the complex web of alliances in the world will drag the entire globe into a single confrontation against China. China is not a fully industrialized nation, and as such is at a major disadvantage against nations such as the US or all of Europe. This is tactically a horrible idea.

Point two: the arms agreement has made China dependant on the EU economically. If China steps out of line for one minute, the EU will cut off Beijing and their economy (which will already be faultering due to paying for a war) will dive bomb and crash.

My conclusion is that this has done nothing except bring a billion people out of the 20th century equivalent of the Dark Ages. Quit your worrying, we'll be fine.

Germany was vastl industrialized in comparison to russia, but who was it that took he reichstaag? Whose superior tactics led to the death of the german army by attrition, with the final culmination at stalingrad. against all odds, against far superior technology (every member of the russian army was given either a gun or ammunition, and they were only given 20-30 rounds). nationalism brings victory. Nationalsim is a powerful tool.

My mistake. I do realize now that you were not advocating sanctions against the EU, unlike our US congress, which threatened sanctions in recent legislation. That would be inappropriate and hypocritical.



I was in fact talking about the death penalty, although the Iraq war was unnecessary and questionably legal. But the argument that it is justifiable to murder people for violating US law is not applicable. After all, don't you think that Chinese people are only put to death for violating Chinese law? Perhaps also in riot actions, such as Tiananmen. But do you remember the incident at Kent State? How many black panthers have been killed by riot police or intelligence organizations? Not to mention Martin Luther King, Jr. Don't you think that if Americans rioted or protested as often as Chinese do, there would be more Americans killed by the government?


ANyone who studies their operatins knows that the black panthers ar eno better than the KKK. Very few people are ever killed by police in protests, most deaths are casued by trampeling. It has nothing to do with the government. The police only step in if there is actual violence, or if there is destruction of property. I am not COMPELTELY sure of hor MLK was killed. But by the time he was killed, he had alreaddy brought blacks out of their aparthied. he was a gerat civil rights activist, but hardly a great man (he cheated on his wife with several women, and any man who cheats should be hung up by his gonads in my book)

Kent state was a violent protest, and i think that there was poor judgement of one guard, which, becasue of the supposed mob mentality, caused the others to fire (some theories suggest he fired a pistol in the air and the others followed suit...in the wrong direction....)

Don't you think that if Americans rioted or protested as often as Chinese do, there would be more Americans killed by the government?

How often do Chinese riot or protest? Almost never. The last time they did, the army drove tanks over them. China executes 4 times as many people as the US per capita because it finds it cheap and easy. And they dont spend 15 years on death row either.

Taiwan belongs to China anyway.

How often do Chinese riot or protest? Almost never. The last time they did, the army drove tanks over them. China executes 4 times as many people as the US per capita because it finds it cheap and easy. And they dont spend 15 years on death row either.

pwnt.

pwnt.

wtf?

Taiwan belongs to China anyway.

who says? the GMD invaded it. they get to keep it.

who says? the GMD invaded it. they get to keep it.
There is only one China. The GMD is nothing.

There is only one China. The GMD is nothing.

who says? who told you this? at the moment there are definitely 2 chinas. they have different governments, different landmasses and different ways of writing stuff. this is a fact.

you are stating your opinion that Taiwan doesn't count. But why?

Now how dumb can the EU get with arms sales to China. Most of these arms will come from our good buddies France(Chirac). Doesnt these peope realise that it may start a very large war in the Pacific. Now that China can buy Euro hardware and tech. (Instead of stealing it) They just may want to take on Taiwan that has been buying US hardware for years. So if Taiwan attacked most of the Pacific nations will be at war against China. Not a good scenerio. Right now Japan is talking of changing there constitution to build up an offensive capability. They will buy US arms of course. They are also contemplating nukes. Since good ole N Korea has em. Thanks to some Euro nations and of course China. So what happens when you get a arms race in Asia? Wow you guessed it! WAR! Now hopefully better thinking will prevail. But I think this is the "Long March" toward war. Not looking at all forward to this prospect. Thanks for nothing Chirac!

I'm not saying it's right, but is it any different from the US arming Israel? What do you get? Iran getting it's own nukes as a result.

It's hypocritical of the US to accuse the EU of selling arms to China and possibly starting a arms race, when the US has been selling arms to Israel, starting an arms race in the Middle East (Iran)

Hopefully, better thinking will prevail, but hypocrisy must end.

Thanks for nothing Bush!

who says? who told you this? at the moment there are definitely 2 chinas. they have different governments, different landmasses and different ways of writing stuff. this is a fact.

you are stating your opinion that Taiwan doesn't count. But why?And why should I recognise a region of China as a separate nation? The UN doesn't, nobody does.
The US has been supporting independance of Taiwan because of the cold war but Taiwan is just a way for chinese criminals to escape the law.

And why should I recognise a region of China as a separate nation? The UN doesn't, nobody does.
The US has been supporting independance of Taiwan because of the cold war but Taiwan is just a way for chinese criminals to escape the law.

Pardon? Taiwan was where the government of the Republic of China ran away to when it was deposed by Communist insurgents.

You say that since the UN doesn't think it is a country, then it isn't a country. But in all practical terms, it is. Which chinese criminals are escaping the law? the GMD? They made the law. Technically the commies were the criminals, at least until they made some new laws which meant that they weren't.

You could also ask the Taiwanese people what they think. Do you think that every citizen of Taiwan is a criminal?

It looks the like the stupid socialist pillocks in the EU are going to help the Yanks start World War 3, YIPPIE!

Why is it so bad that China gets weapons (which they don't even need 'cause Asians are masters at copying techniques) from Europe? Where do you think they get their AK-47's, T tanks, MiGs? Hardly any of those are copyrighted and China has been mass producing them alongside the former USSR. It's not like they need Leopolds or french planes.

And why do you insist they'll start a war with Taiwan? If the USA is so concerned over it, how come China didn't do it earlier? Because they're scared, I tell ya! If Europe and the USA see China do something they do not like, they'll boycot them again. Then, all investments in China are gone and the country will go bankrupt in no time. That's how it went with North Korea and Cuba.

Besides, the USA has (and still does) sold weapons to questionable people around the globe. The USSR, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nationalist China, and other places. There's a lot of American weaponry in use all around the globe used by rebels and terrorists. Ever wondered how they got their hands on it? Probably because the US sells weapons to the wrong people as well. And if you think these rebels and freedom fighters are harmless, think again. I want to bet Osama Bin Laden and his cronies got some guns from American companies to.

It looks the like the stupid socialist pillocks in the EU are going to help the Yanks start World War 3, YIPPIE!

Why would China want a war with the US? It can buy the US.

Why should the EU listen to America ? leave us alone for god sake.

Why should the EU listen to America ? leave us alone for god sake.

Well we would have left you alone earlier in the Century but kept getting panicked phone calls in the middle of the night asking for help. America is the 911 operator for Europe. Its bs if you ask me. Why waste our money and time on ungrateful lil midgets.

Pardon? Taiwan was where the government of the Republic of China ran away to when it was deposed by Communist insurgents.

You say that since the UN doesn't think it is a country, then it isn't a country. But in all practical terms, it is. Which chinese criminals are escaping the law? the GMD? They made the law. Technically the commies were the criminals, at least until they made some new laws which meant that they weren't.

You could also ask the Taiwanese people what they think. Do you think that every citizen of Taiwan is a criminal?You can argue the ROC is China or you can argue that the PRC is China, but from any point of view China is China. Of course the criminals are happy with the idea of independant Taiwan because they can get away from the law easily.
I don't think every citizen of Taiwan is a criminal, but that many criminals flew to Taiwan in order to escape the law in order to keep their unfair oligarchic privileges.

And why should I recognise a region of China as a separate nation? The UN doesn't, nobody does.
The US has been supporting independance of Taiwan because of the cold war but Taiwan is just a way for chinese criminals to escape the law.

Oh stop your yammering and get off the Taiwan issue on this forum. Taiwan is part of China on paper, and that's about it. If you want to call it China's based on that, go ahead, no one will argue. In three years, the issue of who Taiwan belongs to will be a REAL topic.

Chinese nationalism can be a real killer sometimes.

Ge-Ren

You can argue the ROC is China or you can argue that the PRC is China, but from any point of view China is China. Of course the criminals are happy with the idea of independant Taiwan because they can get away from the law easily.
I don't think every citizen of Taiwan is a criminal, but that many criminals flew to Taiwan in order to escape the law in order to keep their unfair oligarchic privileges.

i argue that the PRC is the PRC and the ROC is the ROC. It's your judgenment that they are criminals. It's their judgement that they were usurped. The distinction is irrelevant 50 years later, because they are all dead.

i argue that the PRC is the PRC and the ROC is the ROC. It's your judgenment that they are criminals. It's their judgement that they were usurped. The distinction is irrelevant 50 years later, because they are all dead.

Not only are the original leaders of Taiwan all dead, the government has also been replaced, and said government hasn't been given any opportunity to self-determine, having instead been lumped together as "criminal" and a "rogue province." The only reason I can tell this is still going on is nationalistic pride: there's not a solid reason to continue the dispute, and I can see several ways that the Mainland would benefit from an independent Taiwan. Not to suggest that my own native country (USA) is not bullheaded and stupid (part of the reason I am in China in the first place) but isn't there a point where your head starts to hurt after banging it against a wall long enough or butting heads with someone else long enough, and you just get sick of it and stop pushing?

Ge-Ren