Europe, China and the Arms Embargo:The Implications of European-Chinese Partnership

Edsinger haven't you learned by now that devilwasp is immune to facts? Of all of the people here he has posted more falsehoods, miinterpertations, and outright ignorance of anyone I have seen. He's a typical high school kid too ignorant to realise he doesn't know everything. Perhaps in time hell become educated enough to realise that he knows nothing, after all that is the way human maturity starts.
I agree that selling weapons to china is very short sighted. They have shown no remorse over using thier weapons of war on thier own ctizens in tinannamon square and even now these many years later, they were still opressing any support of those who spoke against the violence.
Europe still hasn't learned from the mistakes of Chamberlain, but we have ed.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Edsinger haven't you learned by now that devilwasp is immune to facts? Of all of the people here he has posted more falsehoods, miinterpertations, and outright ignorance of anyone I have seen. He's a typical high school kid too ignorant to realise he doesn't know everything. Perhaps in time hell become educated enough to realise that he knows nothing, after all that is the way human maturity starts.

Still enjoying the ability to insult people?

I agree that selling weapons to china is very short sighted. They have shown no remorse over using thier weapons of war on thier own ctizens in tinannamon square and even now these many years later, they were still opressing any support of those who spoke against the violence.

Why?
How would it endanger us?
The diffrence is they keep thier problems in thier own country rather than take them to every corner of the globe.

Europe still hasn't learned from the mistakes of Chamberlain, but we have ed.

Actually what chamberlain done was both good and bad, it gave a chance to regroup and rearm, rather than go in with a weak military and country.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Europe still hasn't learned from the mistakes of Chamberlain, but we have ed.

Actually what chamberlain done was both good and bad, it gave a chance to regroup and rearm, rather than go in with a weak military and country.

Well I guess you have proved it once again, Hitler was relatively weak when he marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia, you really are clueless sometimes. Plus not many nations used that "breather' to arm themselves, they thought they had bought the peace.......

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess you have proved it once again, Hitler was relatively weak when he marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia, you really are clueless sometimes.

And we werent?
What the hell did you want us to do?
Break into germany and kick hitler out?
NO we couldnt do that because that would be like puting a dictator in.

Plus not many nations used that "breather' to arm themselves, they thought they had bought the peace.......

Yeah, we seen the war comeing, too late I might add.
Hitler was a very sneaky man, one minute he was all nice and smiles next you have a knife in your back.

Europe had the power to stop Hitler before 1939, when Chamberlain came back the fool, Hitler was hoping he wouldn't be called on it, he needed more time also.....

Originally posted by edsinger
Europe had the power to stop Hitler before 1939, when Chamberlain came back the fool, Hitler was hoping he wouldn't be called on it, he needed more time also.....

Look the pros for appeasement are outwieghed massively by the cons but you must remember, the british people didnt want a war and werent prepared for one.
Chamberlin thought like a diplomat, where everyone wants peace.
Hitler didnt.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
Europe had the power to stop Hitler before 1939, when Chamberlain came back the fool, Hitler was hoping he wouldn't be called on it, he needed more time also.....

Look the pros for appeasement are outwieghed massively by the cons but you must remember, the british people didnt want a war and werent prepared for one.
Chamberlin thought like a diplomat, where everyone wants peace.
Hitler didnt.

Maybe one day you will understand that appeasement never works with a bully, it must be confronted head on. In those days the British and the French had far larger armed forces than did Germany but they though Hitler could be appeased. It is the same thing with radical Islam, which maybe you will understand one day...we either confront it now or later when the tables have turned and the price will be much deeper in cost.

Originally posted by edsinger
Maybe one day you will understand that appeasement never works with a bully, it must be confronted head on.

Did we know he was a bully?
No we are looking at the stratagy in hindsight meaning we have all the data he didnt have.
I do know that appeasement works sometimes, take iraq saddamm was happy for a while but then he got greedy so we had to take him out....if you say thats what america has learned why didnt they stop sadamm earlier?

In those days the British and the French had far larger armed forces than did Germany but they though Hitler could be appeased.

We had a larger spread out force, we where war weary as I said.
In no condition for a war.

It is the same thing with radical Islam, which maybe you will understand one day...we either confront it now or later when the tables have turned and the price will be much deeper in cost.

Radicals are made when there is extreme's , the minute we remove those extreme's there are no radicals.
I understand it now ed and frankly WHAT you want me to understand is unacceptable.

Originally posted by devilwasp

It is the same thing with radical Islam, which maybe you will understand one day...we either confront it now or later when the tables have turned and the price will be much deeper in cost.

Radicals are made when there is extreme's , the minute we remove those extreme's there are no radicals.
I understand it now ed and frankly WHAT you want me to understand is unacceptable.

So you say that we can "contain' radical Islam? Are you serious? When you get a bit older and no longer have that educational systems utopian view of the world, I would hope that you would remember this day and what you wrote........

Originally posted by edsinger
So you say that we can "contain' radical Islam? Are you serious? When you get a bit older and no longer have that educational systems utopian view of the world, I would hope that you would remember this day and what you wrote........

Yes I am, unless you think the war on terror is unwinnable since isnt this what we are fighting?


Also radical islam can be stopped, not dirrectly but in the short term....you see right now we cant change a persons mind, you agree?
BUT their children get taught by what they see and hear...show them NOT to believe radical islam and you will stop it....takes mabye 20-60 years...but it secures our childrens future...dont you agree?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Also radical islam can be stopped, not dirrectly but in the short term....you see right now we cant change a persons mind, you agree?
BUT their children get taught by what they see and hear...show them NOT to believe radical islam and you will stop it....takes mabye 20-60 years...but it secures our childrens future...dont you agree?

Do you know anything of radical Islam? Do you really? It CAN NOT be appeased....

just to make sure you follow....


THEY WILL ONLY RESPECT STRENGTH AND THE WILL TO OPPOSE THEM.......

Your band-aid will only delay the inevitable and deep down you know this but due to Utopian beliefs you can not comprehend it........

Originally posted by devilwasp
Look the pros for appeasement are outwieghed massively by the cons but you must remember, the british people didnt want a war and werent prepared for one.
Chamberlin thought like a diplomat, where everyone wants peace.
Hitler didnt.

Really? Then name a single situation in which appeasement worked as a long term strategy.
If the pros really outweigh the cons it should be a simple task.

Originally posted by edsinger
Do you know anything of radical Islam? Do you really? It CAN NOT be appeased....

YES THATS WHY NO ONE USES IT ANYMORE, DIDNT YOU READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE ABOUT APPEASEMENT?

just to make sure you follow....


THEY WILL ONLY RESPECT STRENGTH AND THE WILL TO OPPOSE THEM.......

Yes and that little stratagey worked out fine for the people in the balklands didnt it?

Your band-aid will only delay the inevitable and deep down you know this but due to Utopian beliefs you can not comprehend it........

Please stop with the insults, I havent insulted you yet but you continue to insult me ,why?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Really? Then name a single situation in which appeasement worked as a long term strategy.
If the pros really outweigh the cons it should be a simple task.

Mabye you should read over what I said...

Oh and just to be kindly to our US neighbors, heres an examle; Isreal and Cuba.
Both sides are/were appeased by the USSR/USA.
Cuba, appeased by the USSR and didnt do anything really foolish except the missile cirisis.
Isreal, hasnt really gone out its weigh to wipe out evey country around it, still appeased by the US by means of tech supplying...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Wasp I am not insulting you by telling you that your beliefs are utopian in nature and pointing it out to you, trust me If I wanted to insult you I would have more than one flag..........

Originally posted by edsinger
Wasp I am not insulting you by telling you that your beliefs are utopian in nature and pointing it out to you, trust me If I wanted to insult you I would have more than one flag..........

In the thread in weapons area I believe the words where, you are ignorant.

I take THAT as an insult.

Your telling me something that I have no basis to believe in.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
Wasp I am not insulting you by telling you that your beliefs are utopian in nature and pointing it out to you, trust me If I wanted to insult you I would have more than one flag..........

In the thread in weapons area I believe the words where, you are ignorant.

I take THAT as an insult.

Your telling me something that I have no basis to believe in.

Ignorant:

ig-no-rant (ig'nuhr uhnt) adj.
1. lacking in knowledge or training;
unlearned.
2. lacking special knowledge or information:
ignorant of physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. showing lack of knowledge or training.


I am ignorant of many things, by me stating what I did I imply that you are clueless of the topics in which you speak, or at least some of them. Dont take offense but what other word would you like? I did not call you stupid as that would imply that you could not learn.....

Originally posted by edsinger
Ignorant:

ig-no-rant (ig'nuhr uhnt) adj.
1. lacking in knowledge or training;
unlearned.
2. lacking special knowledge or information:
ignorant of physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. showing lack of knowledge or training.


I am ignorant of many things, by me stating what I did I imply that you are clueless of the topics in which you speak, or at least some of them. Dont take offense but what other word would you like? I did not call you stupid as that would imply that you could not learn.....

Mabye I dunno , you will learn...
Come on how can you call me ignorant when you are ignorant?
Everyone in the world is ignorant.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

It is the subject matter to which I referred in which I feel you are ignorant, just as I freely admit there are many that I am ignorant on......

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mwm1331
Really? Then name a single situation in which appeasement worked as a long term strategy.
If the pros really outweigh the cons it should be a simple task.

Mabye you should read over what I said...

Oh and just to be kindly to our US neighbors, heres an examle; Isreal and Cuba.
Both sides are/were appeased by the USSR/USA.
Cuba, appeased by the USSR and didnt do anything really foolish except the missile cirisis.
Isreal, hasnt really gone out its weigh to wipe out evey country around it, still appeased by the US by means of tech supplying...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Devilwasp you are ignorant. Take it as an insult if you want, it isn't its an observation. Neither the US's or USSR's treatment of either Cuba or Isreal can be considered appeasement.

appeasement
1. An act of appeasing.
2. The condition of being appeased.
2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

The US has not now or ever granted concessions to Cuba, we have in fact been enforcing an embargo asgainst Cuba for over 50 years, not too mention funding dissident groups and in the 60 attempting t use proxy forces to invade Cuba, try reading up on the bay of pigs, nor can the USSR's treatment of Cuba be called appeasement as they were not political enemies, for the same reason the US's treatment of Isreal can not be charicterised as appeasement as we are not enemies, nor did the USSR ever grant politcal concessons to Isreal in the name of peace.
So once again I ask if you can show me a single situation in which appeasement worked as a long term strategy.
P.S. you really should learn what words mean before you use them.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Devilwasp you are ignorant. Take it as an insult if you want, it isn't its an observation. Neither the US's or USSR's treatment of either Cuba or Isreal can be considered appeasement.

You really havent read over what I said have you?

The US has not now or ever granted concessions to Cuba, we have in fact been enforcing an embargo asgainst Cuba for over 50 years, not too mention funding dissident groups and in the 60 attempting t use proxy forces to invade Cuba, try reading up on the bay of pigs, nor can the USSR's treatment of Cuba be called appeasement as they were not political enemies,

They dont need to be enemies.
Also I never said america appeased cuba.
I said It appeased isreal by giveing it weapons therefore to keep a "stable" or "peaceful" middle east or atealst a more peaceful one.

for the same reason the US's treatment of Isreal can not be charicterised as appeasement as we are not enemies, nor did the USSR ever grant politcal concessons to Isreal in the name of peace.
[/qutoe]
For crying out loud!
READ OVER IT AND TRY AND UNDERSTAND IT!
I said the US gave isreal tech to appease them so that they would keep a relatively peaceful middle east, tell me I am wrong!
The USSR didnt do anything ethier.

So once again I ask if you can show me a single situation in which appeasement worked as a long term strategy.

Once again I direct you to read what I have said instead of jumping on it like a pack of wolves.

P.S. you really should learn what words mean before you use them.

PS. Read over what I have said.
You will notice I am not for appeasement because it gives the other guy the advantage but sometimes it cant be helped.