It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Rice Asks Europe Not To Arm China

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested that European Governments would be irresponsible if they sold advanced weaponry to China. Rice's comments came during her visit to China and alluded to a possible conflict between China and the US in the Pacific in which these weapons could be used. The comments are timed to influence the European Union's decision to lift its Chinese arms embargo which was implemented after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
 



news.yahoo.com
BEIJING - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against U.S. forces in the Pacific.

"It is the United States, not Europe, that is defending the Pacific," Rice said. She spoke in Seoul, the penultimate stop on her weeklong tour of Asia.

South Korea, Japan and the United States are all Pacific powers and all contribute resources to keep the Asia-Pacific region stable, Rice said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think its going to be a hard sell by this American administration to get European nations to withold arms sales from China. Money is money afterall and 'capitalism with morals' isnt exactly Bush's forte.

The main exporter of arms would likely be France in this situation and after being frozen out of the bids to reconstruct Iraq I feel they will not heed this "suggestion". Time to watch the sparks fly

Is the likelyhood of war between China and the US over Taiwan that great that the Secretary of State is willing to lay down fairly harsh diplomatic rhetoric from within the lions den, so to speak?

[edit on 20/3/05 by subz]




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Can this story which is slightly negative when it comes to the current US administration survive the voting process? Stay tuned sports fans, I can see it being burried! +1



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Gotta ask myself exactly 'what is the U.S. defending against?' The U.S. is a major trading partner of China.

Is this rant (from Rice) because the Chinese aren't buying enough U.S. arms? I'm a little surprised the Chinese are buying arms anyway.

Could be an interesting development


Hmmm, just saw subz post- hmmm


[edit on 20-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Its even more interesting that she chose to say this whilst in Beijing. She's got guts, I'll give her that!



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
while this submission may not be structurely or verbally the best written, it is "in my opinion" news, which can now be discussed by people with opposing thoughts on what is happening between the US, Asia and Europe. Now I have to wonder if voters are judging format, the opinion segment or the "story" itself?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Well Ive been experimenting with posting news stories and Ive found that my stories that dont relate to the US administration are voted for upgrade within a couple of hours. Those pertaining to the US administration get about a half dozen negative votes in the first 10 minutes and generally get burried.

Would I be paranoid to think that there is some de facto censorship going on in this news network? Is it that hard to believe that a group of Republicans are voting down any story portraying this administration in a negative light? It really is a weakness of these boards that stories can be voted down.

If you want a sysyem of voting for stories based on merrit you shouldnt allow negative votes. They only allow the sinking of stories. Conversely if you could only vote FOR a story then those stories that have merrit would be upgraded. Those without merrit wont attain the amount of votes needed regardless.

[edit on 20/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Can this story which is slightly negative when it comes to the current US administration survive the voting process? Stay tuned sports fans, I can see it being burried! +1


Notyhing like trying to influence the outcome of the votiing process. Just what does this have to do with the story?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Ah just as I thought Subz was pushing for his story. That is exactly why this new voting polcy for stories should be ended.


BOT

What she said is true. It is irresponsible to sell China Arms, after all Korea is a puppet nation of theirs anyway. That is the exact reason the US does not sell them arms because it is irresponsible.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Shots I posted that remark within 5 minutes of posting that submission because it had already been voted down to -8.

I'd bet money on there being a group of people on this forum dedicated to supressing disenting posts about this administration. -8 votes in 5 minutes is just bizarre.

Back on topic, how can America demand that Europe doesnt sell arms to China? Moral reasons? Why does America send arms to Israel to persecute Palestinians then? Why did America send arms to Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranian even after Halabja? Its just a bit rich asking others not to sell arms to China when your capitalistic morals are in the toilet.

[edit on 20/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Shots I posted that remark within 5 minutes of posting that submission because it had already been voted down to -8.

I'd bet money on there being a group of people on this forum dedicated to supressing disenting posts about this administration. -8 votes in 5 minutes is just bizarre.


Not that it matters, but I voted no based on the structure of the first paragraph. The only reason I see it is that once you said it would not make it the younger generation more then likely said well I can prove subz wrong and then they voted yes, that is wrong.



Back on topic, how can America demand that Europe doesnt sell arms to China? Moral reasons? Why does America send arms to Israel to persecute Palestinians then? Why did America send arms to Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranian even after Halabja? Its just a bit rich asking others not to sell arms to China when your capitalistic morals are in the toilet.

[edit on 20/3/05 by subz]


Back on topic

Answer to your first question is they see no need to sell China Arms simply because there is no need to. I have not seen anyone threaten them with an attack; have you? Now if there was a threat of some sort you might have had a point.

The Answer to your 2nd question is easily answered. They sell arms to Isreal because many have been attacking them openly, thats why.


As for the third question also easily answered. At that time Iran had taken Americans hostage thats why.



[edit on 3/20/2005 by shots]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Since when does Europe listen to what we have to say, anyway? It's my understanding that they're not too happy with us over there at the moment. Is the fact that she's asking nicely really going to change anything?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Funny the world most violent nation asking us not to arm China...


Is the US scared china will take over as big bully?


Come on the US took Saddam of the terror list in '85 just to queeze a few deals through...

Also you have to remember the EU and Chine are lauching their own COMMERCIAL (non military UNlike the US version, surprise, surprize) GPS system.

This is getting to the US who had a monopoly on the GPS till now... they dont like any of this sino-euro friendlynesss .



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Shots what would you suggest I do if I feel that some of my stories are being sunk unjustly? If you have a better idea I'd gladly follow it, im an open minded person.

Back on topic. Its also a matter of interpretation as to who's morally acceptable and who isnt. Its only the USA who is saying that China is an immoral country that shouldnt be allowed advanced weapons.

What do they base their assertion on? The occupation of Tibet? The treatment of Taiwan? Well then wheres the US-led UN trade embargoes? Lets not forget where a vast majority of Chinese wealth comes from - The USA. If they dont deserve high tech arms then they shouldnt be traded with either.

Oh right, I remember now. Its the paramount US interests which need to be protected at all costs. Which is trade with China without having to worry about them biting back when bullied.

Just what exactly is the US trying to say here? We'll take your goods and give you money but if you want parity with us on the battlefield - forget it. Fine if you want to defend yourself but you cant expect others to forgoe profits because you say so.

[edit on 20/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
It is funny is it not. China has warned the US not to get involved with it's policies on Taiwan and the US does not want Europe to sell arms to China, but

The US is Taiwan's biggest supplier of arms


news.bbc.co.uk...

Not to hard to figure out is it.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
people vote NO because of sentance structure?

Wow- what a rip. That has to be one of the - - - - - - things I've read on ATS.

No wonder the non-English speakers don't get their news posted.

Is news news or is it grammer?

Be objective-



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
You know, all of this rhetoric coming from Europeans how America is a bully is pathetic. You guys were right along side us selling and supporting Saddam. Point that out for once. You've been selling to Taiwan just like we have.

It is complete hypocracy when America is asked to do favors, and to listen to Europe, and comment on America's politics (while we are clearly stronger), yet you feel that you have no responsibility to us.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
It’s interesting how the Europeans started both world wars to protect their interests and they then condemn the US for invading Iraq. Maybe it’s because they lost their oil contracts with Saddam that makes them so spiteful of the US.

On topic now: In my opinion China and the US are already involved in a war of sorts. The war is over energy and economic dominance. The Iraq war was over energy. We have troops in the middle east to ensure we get the energy we need for our economy. Remember the plane incident before 9-11. Tensions have been rising between the two countries for some time now. Taiwan is a major source of brainpower for creating chips that go into electronics. This would be a huge plus for China. They would have the knowledge and brainpower as well as the manufacturing capabilities to totally blow away the competition. The US has slowly over time surrounded China with military bases. There is a rush to control the worlds oil chokepoints. In order for China to become a superpower they will need to break out of this type of strangle hold. China stands to gain significantly by bringing Taiwan under its control and the US knows it.

Article

Article

Article

[edit on 20-3-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
In my opinion China and the US are already involved in a war of sorts. The war is over energy and economic dominance.


The problem with that analysis is that China consumes oil in order to manufacture goods to be sold to the US. One could argue that China’s consumption of oil is actually American consumption that was simply displaced to China which for all practical purposes has become America’s Factory. That’s the reason a war between the two countries is not about to break out over a minor issue such as Taiwan. I think it was Mao who said that China could wait a hundred years for Taiwan to come home.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   


The problem with that analysis is that China consumes oil in order to manufacture goods to be sold to the US.


China is moving up the food chain so to say and they will not be Corporate Americas cheap labor force forever. China is gaining experience, knowledge and capital in order to design and manufacture their own intellectual property. The US government is not the same as corporate america. The government will help out corporate america when it is in their best interest but the Government in this case does not benifit from Chinas Cheap goods. Corporate America is driven by profits and will do whatever in order to achieve maximum profits.

I am not saying that there will be war over Taiwan for sure but it could happen. Taiwan is very strategic for both sides so it it hard to say what will happen over the next couple of decades.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

as posted by subz
Back on topic, how can America demand that Europe doesnt sell arms to China? Moral reasons?

Morals?
Don't even go there, subz, k?
If the real reason was brought forth, and not stagnated or suppressed, the real reason that the EU is pushing for selling arms to China is one thing and one thing only: Economics/money?
Taiwan says EU plans to lift China arms ban is money over principles

Why is the European economy not growing?

You think we [the US] are the only ones questioning this?
German opposition to fight for China sanctions




Why does America send arms to Israel to persecute Palestinians then?

Would that be asking why the Europeans [France, etc.] continue to pedal their military wares to Palestine and Syria, etc? Give me a break. Your point is irrelevant.



Why did America send arms to Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranian even after Halabja?

Apparently, you missed this, eh?
Saddam Nerve Gas Case Opens in the Netherlands



Its just a bit rich asking others not to sell arms to China when your capitalistic morals are in the toilet.

Keep talking. Your overflated European values [as with your overflated Euro] and morals are likewise in the "toilet".






seekerof

[edit on 20-3-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join