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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I do wonder if people can add this up... China has business relations with Osama Bin Laden.... and in 1999 two Chinese Colonels wrote a new book on how China should wage it's war against the US....one of the things mentioned by these two Chinese officials is...
[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]


Muaddib, THINK THIS THROUGH.

They wrote a book!

If China had a official plan to destroy the U.S, WHY WRITE A BOOK!!!!!!

It's like saying, "here, this is how i'am going to destroy you".

The book only represents a theory, a new strategic thinking, something that every country does to review it's defense capabilities. Are you suggesting that the U.S. does not conduct research into how to destroy China in the event of war?




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Good post Muaddib, however I'd like to add to it if I could.

Your post states that China has provided WMD's to states that America considers friends and allies:

Egypt - US Ally
Saudi Arabia - Close US Ally

Now if they were acquiring WMD's I would of thought we would of heard about it. Afterall the whole basis for the Iraq war was based on the proliferation of WMDs.

So im sorry but I dont accept that they were WMD's, what I would believe is that they were conventional weapons. That includes sales to Syria, Libya and Iran. I accept that the absence of furore is a weak basis for my argument but in light of no concrete evidence to the contrary I maintain it.

Now to illustrate my, and those of others, points about American hypocrisy when it comes to asking for the banning of arms sales to China I want to discuss America's CATP.

The Conventional Arms Transfer Policy of the US Government makes for interesting reading.


The policy issued by the President will serve the following goals:

1) To ensure that our military forces can continue to enjoy technological advantages over potential adversaries.

That is the primary goal of Americas Arms Transfer Policy. To ensure America can continue its military dominance of the globe.

The United States will also continue vigorous support for current arms control and confidence-building efforts to constrain the demand for destabilizing weapons and related technology.


The U.S. restricts exports to preserve its military edge or regional stability, where the U.S. has no fielded countermeasures, or where the transfer of weapons raises issues involving human rights

Noble intentions by President Clinton


In the days after the September terror attacks, President Bush won Congress' approval to lift restrictions on military aid to countries he deems deserving. The first -- and most troubling -- beneficiaries of this arrangement were Pakistan and India.

A general embargo on arms sales to Pakistan has been partially lifted, and as a result the country has already received millions of dollars in aid to beef up internal security and border patrols, as well as six Apache attack helicopters. During his visit to Washington last week, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was promised a much larger aid package in the coming months, with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointedly saying that "we look forward to strengthening the military-to-military ties" between Washington and Islamabad.
American Arms - Into Whose Hands?

India

There was increasing concern at the erosion of human rights protections in the context of “anti-terrorism” measures against armed political groups, and continuing communal tensions. Systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups – including women, religious minorities, dalits and adivasis (tribal people) – was exacerbated by widespread use of security legislation, political interference with the criminal justice system and slow judicial proceedings in a continuing climate of impunity.


Members of the security services continued to enjoy virtual impunity for human rights violations.

Amnesty International 2004 Report - India

Pakistan

Hundreds of people were arbitrarily detained in the context of the US-led “war on terror”. Human rights abuses against women, children and religious minorities continued to be ignored by the government. There were severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the North West Frontier Province


President Pervez Musharraf as head of state and chief of army staff retained sweeping powers. The government sidelined the main opposition parties and only held talks on the LFO with an alliance of religious opposition parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). The talks, which had been initiated in July, did not produce any agreement as the government failed to set a firm date by which President Musharraf would resign as chief of army staff.

Amnesty International Report 2004 - Pakistan

So we see American Arms and military funding going to India - where its security forces enjoy impunity from human rights. But also to Pakistan which is for all intents and purposes a military dictatorship which has sidelined the opposition.

Theres also the massive military aid given to Israel but that horse has been beaten to death many times over. We all know America gives arms and allowed Mossad to steal her nuclear secrets. Destabilising? Israel enjoys a military advantage over her neighbours comparable to the US over the rest of the World

So can it be fair to assume that America's call to restrict European arms to China is confusing at best?

Is it really because America doesnt want to see arms going to countries with bad human rights records? Or is it because, as ive stated all along, that America wishes to "ensure that our military forces can continue to enjoy technological advantages over potential adversaries."

EDIT: Muaddib, the US has military plans for the destruction of most of the Worlds countries. Im sure they have plans drawn up for the invasion of Britain should the need arise. They acknowledge they had plans drawn up for the invasion and complete nuclear annihilation of the USSR. Even down to the flight paths their bombers would take to avoid known USSR Anti-Air sites. Why you lend credence to the fact that China will carry out these plans I dont know. I dont see America carrying out all her plans - yet.

[edit on 22/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28


Ok Mauddib, i apologise and take that back.


However, i will still rebuke your assertions and links.

Right now, i will only rebuke the most obvious statement you made (rest will follow later)


Apology accepted, and I also apologise for the manner of my response, i tend to be sarcastic when people do the same to me.



Originally posted by rapier28
U.S. Foreign Policy During the Cold War



With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3



As you can see, even if your assertions on China was real, it doesn't even compare to America's role in breeding terrorists against the Soviet Union. All your article alege China of doing is buying missiles, America actually trains and supplies people involved in a "Jihad".


Yes, back in the days we were "openly" fighting against Communism...and I still think we are fighting it, but now it is more covert, just as Communists are fighting against the US and the West in general also in more covert ways. This is nothing new I think... unless some people had no idea this happened...


Originally posted by rapier28


Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1


So tell me, Mauddib, which is worse?

China supposedly buying U.S missiles from Bin Laden or the U.S training Bin Laden?


As your own links show, the US trained Osama to fight against the Communists....Osama then turned against us, on his own accord, and now the same communists we were fighting back in the day are using him to fight us....

I have given in the past several times an interview that was done to Osama where he says that the Islamic radicals were already thinking on ways to attack us once they finished with the Russian communists, even when we were helping them. I doubt the US even knew back then that Osama would turn against us...



Originally posted by rapier28
A few more link;

BBC Profile of Bin Laden


Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.


MSNBC Link


Again, you fail to see that we were using Osama back then to fight against Communism...then Osama himself turned against us, and with the help of the former Communists he is attacking us.....



Originally posted by rapier28
Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.


The US were openly fighting the Communists as they were openly fighting against us.... Again, i ask you.... what don't you understand that we were using people such as Osama back then to fightthe communists?...and now they are using him to fight against us in more covert ways...




Originally posted by rapier28
And this is from your source



China paid Osama bin Laden several million dollars for access to unexploded American cruise missiles left over from the US attack on his bases three years ago, a senior alleged al-Qaida agent in Europe has claimed.


Mauddib's Guardian Source

That is dated October 20, 2001.

That would make China's transactions, even if it was true around 1998. That is 3 years before September 11. Hardly explosive news.


How is it not explosives news, since Osama was already considered a terrorist in those days?.... The Chinese where having business deals with Osama who was considered a terrorist because he had already announced his hatred towards the US and made several terrorist attacks against the US.....




Originally posted by rapier28

Haha, so according to your logic, America trained Bin Laden, Bin Laden bombs WTO. Therefore America bombed WTO?


No...you obviously cannot see that we trained Osama to fight Communism almost 20 years ago.... He then turned against us, on his own accord, and the communists started using him to fight us.....

Have you ever had a supposed friend turn against you?..... no?....

---edited for errors---


[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Muaddib, THINK THIS THROUGH.

They wrote a book!

If China had a official plan to destroy the U.S, WHY WRITE A BOOK!!!!!!

It's like saying, "here, this is how i'am going to destroy you".

The book only represents a theory, a new strategic thinking, something that every country does to review it's defense capabilities. Are you suggesting that the U.S. does not conduct research into how to destroy China in the event of war?


You think this through.... First of all, the book was published with the permission and endorsement of others Chinese officials.

---I had to delete the quote because it is copyrighted... I give a link to it directly anyways for those interested in reading it----

Link.
www.geocities.com...

Second, why do you think that countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and other countries which are supposed to be our friends are arming, or armed illegally, countries such as Iraq, and Iran among others?.... Countries which have openly stated their hatred and their willingness to attack the West and the US in specific?.... Too much of a coincidence imo.

Third and no least, we all know what CHinese officials have said about a war with the US, partly because of Taiwan... at least I think we all do since it has been in the news and I have presented those links several times when this topic comes up.


Gen. Chi recently stated that he believes war is "inevitable" between the People's Republic of China and the United States.

Excerpted from.
www.afpc.org...

General Chi is the former Chinese Defense Minister, before Cao Gangchuan became the Defense Minister in China.

That's not the only Chinese official that thinks this war is inevitable. i would have to look once more for the links i have posted in the past which corroborate what i am saying.


[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]


[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

as posted by subz
Still no reply to my post from you except an incredibly witty change to your custom title. "Want a tissue?" nah I'd prefer and decent answer first

When you get around to answering mine, as I asked first, then you will receive like respect.
Till then, "want a tissue?"




seekerof



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Goal accomplished.
Excellent job Ms. Rice.


Rice Asks Europe Not To Arm China.
Europe hesitates then responds: Yes, ma'am.
European Union Said to Keep Embargo on Arms to China


WASHINGTON, March 21 - Yielding to pressure from President Bush and threats of retaliation from Congress, the European Union has put off plans to lift its arms embargo on China this spring and may not press the issue until next year, American and European officials said Monday.

The officials said that in addition to American pressure, European nations have been shaken by the recent adoption of legislation by the Chinese National People's Congress authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from seceding. The Chinese action, they said, jolted France and undercut its moves to end the embargo before June.

"Europe wants to move forward on the embargo, but the recent actions by China have made things a lot more complex," said a senior European official. "The timeline has become more difficult. The timeline is going to have to slip."

The embargo was imposed after China's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and although some countries have eased their restrictions, it has curbed the supply of weapons to China while also becoming a major irritant in China's relations with the West.






seekerof



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Goal accomplished.
Excellent job Ms. Rice.

...........


That's excellent news.


But i do hope that some members of the European community don't decide to illegally supply China, just as they did with Iraq....



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by subz
Still no reply to my post from you except an incredibly witty change to your custom title. "Want a tissue?" nah I'd prefer and decent answer first

When you get around to answering mine, as I asked first, then you will receive like respect.
Till then, "want a tissue?"




seekerof

Dude I re-read your posts in this thread to make sure I didnt miss any question of yours. Any questions you did ask of my I've replied to and backed up with relevant sources.

If you are refering to the flame war you're trying to start with me you wont get one.

To that end I am still waiting on your reply to my previous posts. The posts about how I was, according to you, wholy refuted by you and your collection of firey adjectives.

Tick tock, you dont stop.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

France and Germany are keen to lift the embargo and replace it with a strengthened code of conduct on all EU arms sales. Britain, which takes over the six month EU presidency on 1 July, has given its support in principle.



The US has always opposed the lifting of the ban, warning that China could embark on an arms-buying spree.

Because the US might help defend Taiwan in the event of an attack by China, it does not want anything to add to Chinese capabilities.



British officials denied US reports that the EU had already decided to put off consideration of lifting the embargo until next year.


Goal not yet accomplished, unlucky Ms Rice. Could well still go ahead.

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Reading your posts, Mauddib, it seems that you actually believe war between China and the U.S. are about to happen.

China and the U.S. will not have an war in our lifetimes, or the forseeable future for that matter, not even over Taiwan. That is the reality of things.

1) The current business arrangement is far too cosy to start a war. As both economies get integrated further, they will be less and less chance of war.

2) Despite what we might all think, the leaders of both countries are quite sensible when it comes to the crunch. Why do you think that the Cold War never resulted in annilation, it is because at the end, we are all the same. There is no such person willing to cause global destruction.

3) Your assertions of Chinese involvement in supporting terrorism is simply illogicaly. The East Turkestan movement in China has links to Bin Laden and seeks to bring independence for XinJiang. China is not stupid enough to cooperate with them under any conditions. If anything, China has seen the consequences of U.S. cooperation with Bin Laden.

So, Just cool it ok, war is not inevitable. Both sides are simply posturing.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Reading your posts, Mauddib, it seems that you actually believe war between China and the U.S. are about to happen.

China and the U.S. will not have an war in our lifetimes, or the forseeable future for that matter, not even over Taiwan. That is the reality of things.
.........


You are obviously out of the loop here.... First of all, it is not only that I think this is going to happen, and if i think it is going to happen it is because Chinese officials say this themselves...and the Chinese government is arming itself even more as we speak towards this end as they themselves have stated....

The chinese government has already stated they won't stand idle meanwhile Taiwan signs up a declaration of independence...they will go to war before this happens.... The Taiwanese government and the majority of the people of Taiwan want, and are working, for the formal declaration of independence of Taiwan by 2008....the US and other allies will back up Taiwan if China starts a war with Taiwan....

So, stating that war with China will never occur in our lifetime is simply ignoring everything that has happened at least in the past two years in regards to Taiwan and China....and not to mention what Chinese officials have stated about the US....

BTW, i am cool...i am just stating the obvious, as the evidence shows.



[edit on 23-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I too wouldnt be suprised if China wants to start a war over Taiwan. I would be suprised however if America engaged China in that war. Theres too much trade involved between the two countries and in my opinion China could kill America's economy if it wished. Also a protracted war would be easier for China to sustain.

But am I correct in remembering that the Taiwanese President dropped their pro-independance stance in 2000? A softening that lead to better relations with China.

Whats more likely to happen is that a case of brinkmanship will occur on China's part and Taiwan will likely gain an autonomous zone status much like Hong Kongs. I dont think it would take much for the compromise and America would whisper into Taiwan's ear that its the wisest move for all involved.

China could pull it off with a naval blockade of the Formosa Straight isolating Taiwan. America is only vocalising its support for Taiwan, I really dont think they will come to blows over it.

Also on the apparent caving in of the EU on selling arms to China, personally I welcome the move. I believe that arms shouldnt sold to any one by any one. The only thing I had issue with was the reasons America gave for its stance. Less arms sales are a good thing, now can we stop America arming all her friends and allies too?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

But am I correct in remembering that the Taiwanese President dropped their pro-independance stance in 2000? A softening that lead to better relations with China.
...........................
Also on the apparent caving in of the EU on selling arms to China, personally I welcome the move. I believe that arms shouldnt sold to any one by any one. The only thing I had issue with was the reasons America gave for its stance. Less arms sales are a good thing, now can we stop America arming all her friends and allies too?


I don't know where you got that the Taiwanese president or the people of Taiwan dropped their pro-independence stance in 2000. That i know of, they have not dropped this stance of wanting to formally declare their independence from China.

Why do you even think that China just recently signed an anti-secession law towards Taiwan?...


Saturday March 05, 2005 5:29pm
BEIJING (AP) - Premier Wen Jiabao opened China's national legislative session Saturday vowing never to allow Taiwanese independence, while promising to ease the potentially explosive domestic issue of grinding rural poverty with an economic plan calling for 8 percent growth this year.

The planned passage of an anti-secession bill - effectively a warning to Taiwan against declaring formal independence - has overshadowed the annual meeting of the National People's Congress. Wen gave few details of the planned law, saying only that it "reflects the strong determination of the Chinese people to ... never allow secessionist forces working for Taiwan independence to separate Taiwan from China."

Taiwanese leaders say the proposed law could offer a pretext for a military attack on the island, which split from the mainland during the 1949 civil war and has been self-ruled since, although Beijing considers it part of China.


Excerpted from.
www.wjla.com...

And about the US stopping arming our friends....that will probably happen when Russia, China, North Korea, France, Germany and a few others stop arming those countries and groups who profess their hatred towards the US.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
As subz and rapier have both said, if looked at from a realistic view, a war between China and the USA will certainly not happen in our lifetimes. Neither have anything to gain and a hell of a lot to lose as both need each other for trade.

I can however as suggested see China invading Taiwan if things are not resolved through other methods, what methods I do not know. However I do not see an invasion in the near future. If an invasion did take place the US would not get involved, it cannot afford to and would gain nothing from it. US threats are not something that would sway the Chinese either, in my opinion.

All that aside, I personally would quite like Taiwan to be independant. Only because I have talked with many Taiwanese and they by no means hate the Chinese, they just feel there way of life is so much different to the Chinese way of life now.

Back to the topic.

As I have said therte has been no agreement with the US to delay the arms deals, despite what Ms Rice may have been saying back in her home country. The weapon sales will go ahead soon enough, I for one have no problem with it.

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
IMHO, and many of the policy makers in the think tanks which run this country.A war with China or some combination of the worlds remaining superpowers is actually un-avoidable within our life times.

Sure we have strong business ties but that will only last as long as there are adequate resources available for all to share, or agree to share. IF one is honest we can look at the worlds commodities prices, and see this as an indicator of their growing scarcity.

Besides do you have any clue as to how much currency China buys to keep the U.S afloat? THey aren't going to do this forever. With the continuing rise in the Euro's value is it really soo hard to believe that the worlds strongest currency will soon be replaced?

All the U.S's power stems from years of economic superiority. Once that is gone,so is the U.S.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Besides if our policy makers didn't think a war was possible then why would Condi make a public statement against China procurring Arms?

Oru leaders know it is inevitable, and fear the day we face an equal opponent.

Over a billion armed chinese armed with the latest weaponry. WE wouldn't stand a chance.

Which is why policy makers are scrambling to do everything in their power to avoid China being equally armed



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I don't know where you got that the Taiwanese president or the people of Taiwan dropped their pro-independence stance in 2000. That i know of, they have not dropped this stance of wanting to formally declare their independence from China.

Why do you even think that China just recently signed an anti-secession law towards Taiwan?...

BBC Story: Taiwan reviews independence stance

On the anti-secession law I see it as codifying their position and letting the Americans know how serious they are in maintaining their border integrity. Basically the diplomatic equivalent of "We mean business". Much like Americas dumping of its long standing "One China Policy". Did that necessarily mean WAR!? Or did it just indicate that Bush means what he says?

[edit on 23/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Besides if our policy makers didn't think a war was possible then why would Condi make a public statement against China procurring Arms?

Oru leaders know it is inevitable, and fear the day we face an equal opponent.

Over a billion armed chinese armed with the latest weaponry. WE wouldn't stand a chance.

Which is why policy makers are scrambling to do everything in their power to avoid China being equally armed


It has never being about China percuring arms. Most of the EU firms would not sell to China.

Your leaders hype up the tensions to justify your own military spending. Your military budget is equal to half the worlds, currently and in the forseeable future, The U.S would not lose a war to anyone.

That is true because no war with america would be fought in america, the worst thing that could happen to you is akin to Vietnam, you withdraw. You are in a sense lucky because unlike the Romans, your home is unreachable by land unless of course Canada decides to attack you.


-----

Ok, China is not planning war with America, how do i know that?

Simple.

China has a dozen of so missiles that can reach the U.S. If China was planning war with the states, China would have thousands of missiles just like the U.S and Russia.

It's not hard to go from 1 missile to 1000, it's the 1 that's hard to get.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by rapier28]

[edit on 24-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
All the hype regarding China is merely the Wall-Street fatcats and the top military brass, preparing for threats that may come about in the near (or late) future...

It merely wants to remain top-dog... And it will do so at whatever cost....




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join