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

Originally posted by devilwasp
I said It appeased isreal by giveing it weapons therefore to keep a "stable" or "peaceful" middle east or atealst a more peaceful one.

So what did the French do previous to the 1967 war? What the US did was make Israel stronger after the 1973 war to the point that the Arabs could no longer even dream to think they could win a war, especially considering they lost the last 2 quite badly.

All the US did was add a force multiplier and the wars of the Arabs to drive the Jews to the sea, stopped......except for the occasional skirmish like the Beka Valley in 1982......

This is when the Arabs realized they could no longer win militarily so they started killing civilians and Modern terrorism was then born...

Originally posted by edsinger
So what did the French do previous to the 1967 war?

Did I say france is "mr/s good"? No....I dont really trust them myself...

What the US did was make Israel stronger after the 1973 war to the point that the Arabs could no longer even dream to think they could win a war, especially considering they lost the last 2 quite badly.

"On 31 October 1998, Israel and the United States reached an agreement designed to provide greater security for Israel against regional missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats. The Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), signed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Bill Clinton, commits the United States to enhancing Israel's "defensive and deterrent capabilities."[1]
"
Ahem...

All the US did was add a force multiplier and the wars of the Arabs to drive the Jews to the sea, stopped......except for the occasional skirmish like the Beka Valley in 1982......

Read above.

This is when the Arabs realized they could no longer win militarily so they started killing civilians and Modern terrorism was then born...

Yeah, but you cant just dump it all on the arabs.

Originally posted by devilwaspDid I say france is "mr/s good"? No....I dont really trust them myself...

Well at least we agree on one thing.

Originally posted by devilwasp
"On 31 October 1998, Israel and the United States reached an agreement designed to provide greater security for Israel against regional missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats. The Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), signed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Bill Clinton, commits the United States to enhancing Israel's "defensive and deterrent capabilities."[1]
"
Ahem...

We have been doing the same for 25+ years and whats your point? We make it impossible for the Arabs to destroy Israel and there has been no major war since 73. It works. Until now and if they (Arabs) get a nuke.

Originally posted by devilwasp
This is when the Arabs realized they could no longer win militarily so they started killing civilians and Modern terrorism was then born...

Yeah, but you cant just dump it all on the arabs.


Well last time I checked, I haven't heard of Israelis strapping C4 on themselves and blowing up Arab nightclubs.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Well at least we agree on one thing.

[
Two if you count supporting the troops...

We have been doing the same for 25+ years and whats your point? We make it impossible for the Arabs to destroy Israel and there has been no major war since 73. It works. Until now and if they (Arabs) get a nuke.
[/qoute]
I'm pointing out what tech the US has given them which gives them the ability to do some serios damage to the surounding countries.

Well last time I checked, I haven't heard of Israelis strapping C4 on themselves and blowing up Arab nightclubs.
[edit on 4-3-2005 by edsinger]

No, but I also remember japanses fighter pilots flying into carriers, terrorism is a war, just there is no parades or uniforms.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I'm pointing out what tech the US has given them which gives them the ability to do some serios damage to the surounding countries.


No, but I also remember japanses fighter pilots flying into carriers, terrorism is a war, just there is no parades or uniforms.

True but have they attacked any Arab country? I know Lebanon but that was a defensive reaction imho.


Well that was 50 years ago, isnt it about time to stop the senseless terror?

Originally posted by edsinger
True but have they attacked any Arab country? I know Lebanon but that was a defensive reaction imho.

A good defense is a good offense.

Well that was 50 years ago, isnt it about time to stop the senseless terror?

Thats the only effective weapon they have, its like the US or the UK's supply of chem or nuke weapons, shouldnt we stop makeing senseless doomsday weapons?
When you look at some of cases of terrorists, you actually see most or not fundamentals, just normal people angry at something or thier family is endanger.
Although you do get a large number sick fundemental terrorists who dominate the lesser ones.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
True but have they attacked any Arab country? I know Lebanon but that was a defensive reaction imho.

A good defense is a good offense.

I am quite shocked you recognize this, cheers!

Originally posted by edsinger
I am quite shocked you recognize this, cheers!

It also the best way to mask civilian killings.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
I am quite shocked you recognize this, cheers!

It also the best way to mask civilian killings.

Do you really think the US or the UK is doing that on purpose? You know better, or at least I hope you do.

Originally posted by edsinger
Do you really think the US or the UK is doing that on purpose? You know better, or at least I hope you do.

Who's talking about the US and UK.
I am pointing out what the facts are and how easy It would be to hide that many civilian deaths, my opinion is not what is being debated.

Well I sure as hell read it that way, we hide civilian killings right?

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I sure as hell read it that way, we hide civilian killings right?

If needed then probably yes.....remember there are some soldiers , not a lot thank god, that would lie for the service.
Remember services need to do what is needed for thier country, good or bad...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Remember services need to do what is needed for thier country, good or bad...

wow I didnt expect that from you............

Originally posted by edsinger
wow I didnt expect that from you............

I also want to remind you thats why the Adjutant General's Corps was invented.....

I agree but that is not a leftist comment, it is hard for me to believe you accept that as truth and necessity.

Originally posted by edsinger
I agree but that is not a leftist comment, it is hard for me to believe you accept that as truth and necessity.

Its nethier right nor left, its simply a fact.
I see the benifits of both and hold both in high regard, the rights strong stance in war would save any country from destruction I'm sure, but the left's policy of peace would stop most if not all conflicts.
In my opinion ofcourse....

I agree but that is not a leftist comment, it is hard for me to believe you accept that as truth and necessity.

Remember Ed, in the UK, we are not as partisan as you chaps over the Pond, and hover either centre-left/right, and have interchangeable ideals.

One person could have right wing views on Immigration for example, yet still believe wholehartedly in Social Healthcare. Two diametric ideas together. Believe me, I am one of those.

To paint everyone with the Liberla/Conservative brush is too black and white, and as you have berated poor Devilwasp on his "utopian" ideals, and his age I might add, then you must also realise that the US view of everything in Black and White also does not convey the reality of the modern world.

Onto topic.

Why is it that selling weapons to China is bad? Is it because you, as a (extreme) right wing conservative in the US fears a strong(er) China?

You forget a few things about China:

1) They have nearly always been a dominant world power. It has only been recently in the past century and a half or so, after European meddling in their affairs that they became weak. They are merely re-ascerting their position at the top of the food chain, where they always have been.

2) They seek neither territorial conquest, or war with anyone. All the calls for war have come from you guys, not them. And you wonder why they want better weapons?

3) they are one of your largest trading partners, AND creditors, so war with you would be folly anyway. Why are you so afraid?

4) You accuse the Europeans of having either an attitude of appeasement, little experience in Foreign affairs or being more interested in trade. Is trade not better than war? Do you not think that Europe (and the UK in particular) has plenty of experience in dealings with foreigners?

5) We stand to make a nice mint out of weapons sales to China (The UK being one of the worlds leading weapons manufacturers). And on the heel of weapons sales comes other things, such as civilian Aerospace and other High-Tech goods. Its called trading, they make crappy little things en masse, and we, in return, trade them high value, high tech goods.

Why all the anti China rhetoric Ed? They may not have the same idelogy than you, but then, they never have!

They are a different culture entirely. This is one world, with many voices, not just that of the US and its corporate lackeys!

Not everyone wishes to listen Britney sodding Spears and eat McFattys.

Although, the Chinese admittedly seem to like to eat a few Big Macs a day, look at their rising obesity problem. But then, this has risen due to the increasing influence of western ideals on their culture.

[edit on 13/3/05 by stumason]

I can not disagree with that except for that at some point China will make a move against Taiwan and maybe the Spratleys, If they do not have the sophisticated military to even attempt it then war is less likely.

As long as they are communists, I would refrain from arming them with the latest is all, it will come in time but they do not need the technology right now anyway as no one in their right minds would want to invade China.

they are not building a defensive machine by any means is all....


Restraint is all I ask........

And restraint is what you will most likely get. We are not about to arm them with Chally 2's, Eurofighters (at least not just yet) or Vanguard subs, but more than likely 2nd rate (by Western Standards) APC's, helo's and maybe some older generation fighters, along side base technologies, but none that will compromise our own national security or advantage.

This, like I have said, is to open the door for other High-tech Euro products, which always follow on from big arms deals.

The communist China of now, is much different even from ten years ago. There has been a good series in the last week on BBC News about China, and for its (continuing) problems, it has advanced much across the board.

It is not strictly communist, and even if you classify it as such, it still is not the same as the Soviets were.

Taiwan, they have a legitimate claim. As Spain (thinks ) it does on Gibraltar, and Argentina (thinks ) it does on the Falklands. This is no different. The problem here, is that the US has managed to get itself treaty bound to protect Taiwan. This is quite amusing, as it wasn't until recently (last decade or so) that Taiwan became truly democratic itself.

The Taiwanese Government is the remains of the former Chinese Nationalist movement, fascists for want of a better word. So thank your lucky stars (thirtenn isn't there Ed?) the commies won! Imagine a fascist China! Then you would have reason to be scared!

Lastly, I cannot believe that Ed and myself seem to have at least reached some middle ground.... (well, I was already there, just trying to get Ed to dip his toe in!)

EDIT: Here is a link for the BBC on China. Its a start, worth a read. The BBC is a fair and balanced news source Ed, worth looking at it every now and then:

BBC on China


Have fun!


Edit again for crap spelling

[edit on 13/3/05 by stumason]

Oh I know they are changing very rapidly indeed, I just ask for some restraint in what types, in that I mean force multipliers. Let me give you an example....


The AWACS the Israelis were selling them, this is a destabilizer in the region in a sense.

Yes the US has also shown restraint, let me give you another example, the Russians sold them Sovermeny DDG's, deadly warships indeed but nothing the US Navy can not handle.

The Taiwan government then asked for a AEGIS warship and we declined and gave them some KIDD class DDG's instead. That way there was no shift in the balance of power.

As things stand right now the Chinese can not take Taiwan, but that could change with the sell of advanced systems such as ASTER from the Europeans.

Restraint can avoid undo tensions and one side thinking that they could actually do it, I will mention Argentina here as a case in point.


Restraint.........Sell them Challengers? why would they need them? they want the electronic systems and EW warfare items, not tanks they build their own.

BTW Nice link and yes I think we have reached middle ground.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by edsinger]