Why am I not surprised .......

[straffo]

Look like you've read more than I posted

Originally posted by Seagoon Straffo,

First, please understand that my objective is not to beat up the French simply for being wilfully French. My point was to criticize their decision to sell arms to the country (China) that is currently the greatest potential threat to the country that defends them. (the USA).

I think I've exposed my arguements to spark ,no need to rehash thi here.

To argue that the USA doesn't defend Europe, and that the Europeans do is simply nonsensical. Europe depends on NATO for its defense, and NATO is in fact the American Armed Forces, with some European assistance. This is what allows the European nations to spend such a small amount of their total GDP on their armed forces.

Didn't wrote that or argued we were autome ,I just reacted to your remark about weapon we were unable to build for our own defense.
I speak of technology and you write here about a more quantitative approach ,Apple and Orange IMO.

For instance, despite the fact that the French defense budget has increased dramatically over the past few years to the current high of $39.2 Billion in 2004 and the French deployed 34,000 worldwide last year, this spending is still dwarfed by the US defense budget of well over $400 Billion and a total troop deployment into the hundreds of thousands for the same year. It is not the threat of French intervention worldwide that keeps nations like China and North Korea within their borders, and it certainly wasn't fear of the dreaded French Foriegn Legion or even French Nukes that caused the USSR not to roll its armored legions into Western Europe.

I know France is dwarfed by the US concerning military ,didn't argue the "contraire"

How is France considering repaying the US for its past and present largesse?

If you want to use an "accountant" approach what date will you choose to look at this to see if it's balanced ?
from 1763 to today ?
from 1776 to today ?
or from 1942 to today ?
My guess is like lot of people you don't want to look past the last 60 year.
And it's simply dishonest.

By selling weapons systems, and more importantly weapons technology to China, a country that spends over $70 Billion on its armed forces, and which might already be able to dominate in a single theater war with the US forced to cover so many areas at once.

I don't think France will be ever able to sell enought weapon and technology to China to represent a danger.
You can note I wrote above I think it's not a good idea,and lastly I'm pretty sure the US know pretty well our weapon capability

Surely you aren't seriously going to defend this policy? Selling to India and Pakistan is dicey, but its hardly the same as selling to a country that has expressed a willingness to engage the US or NATO in a head-to-head conflict.

I'm sure you know the 1st stone parable.

By Comparison, it would be like selling weapons to the Japanese in 1940.
- SEAGOON

Well I don't think so we not own Indochina anymore so the rick for us is pretty low.
This sentence is here only to fuel the debate
And take more as an harhs joke

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by straffo
IMO you just don't know the cold war is over.

Please name me a weapon system made in US we use ?

E-2C Hawkeye for one

Until recently the f-8 Crusader (Don't know why ya'll hung on to those relics so long)

More

[Fishu]

I wouldn't say anything about France and it's intentions to sell weapons/technology to china, because it is a "bad country".
Not when the USA has done similar kind of business throughout the years with different countries.

It's real nice of you to sell weapons to questionable countries and then critisize others for doing that


If it'd be up to me, the weapons could be as well ridded all together, but thats not going to happen as long as humans are humans.


Basically theres no reason to not to sell weapons to China, other than that it is a communistic country.
But then again some countries do sell weapons to worse governments than the chinese communists.
So why have these countries, like the USA, sold weapons to these worse governments?

What comes to the USA fightning chinese, it is all about Taiwan, since there are no other reasons why the two would engage in a war.
Keep in mind that Taiwan is not recognized as sovereign country worldwide. Not even by the USA to my knowledge.
Then again it could be also part of Japan, but they renounced their claim on Taiwan.
It has been debatable for a long time whether Taiwan is part of China or not.
Not so surprisingly China considers Taiwan as a part of it and on the other hand that is true, while on the other hand it might not be.
Therefore China has all the right to defend Taiwan as their land and it would be a domestic issue, in which the USA would actually be the invaders.
However the USA doesn't want to consider Taiwan as a part of China.


Therefore Taiwanese matter is not a reason to ban weapons sale to China.
Which is the only reason why the USA would be in a war against the weapons.
Weapons sale to China was stopped after the violent end to the demonstrations, not because of the Taiwan issue.

However I do find it highly unlikely for the USA to enter in a war against chinese.

[straffo]

Originally posted by ASTAC
E-2C Hawkeye for one

Until recently the f-8 Crusader (Don't know why ya'll hung on to those relics so long)

More

hmmm ... I was more thinking of lethal weapon but your post is correct.

Concerning the F8 I don't know.

[oboe]

Seagoon, I think the French would object to the insinuation that they are being 'defended' by NATO.   Didn't they withdraw from the treaty and throw NATO out of France in the mid-60s?

Also I am pretty sure they would not consider the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as actions taken in their defense.  So from whom are you implying that the US is defending the French?

I have to agree with Fishu, and I would add that it is the US who is pursuing a far more reckless course regarding arms sales.   Not only do we sell arms to a country (Taiwan) who is a sore spot to our largest trading partner and creditor nation (China), but we sell arms to BOTH sides (India, Pakistan) in one of the world's flashpoints.   Seems to me the Indian subcontinent is a pretty strong candidate for the world's first nuclear exchange.

Concerning the F8 Crusader, I am pretty sure the French hung on to them so long because 1) it was an excellent, useful arcraft and 2) they wanted to replace it with a French-developed aircraft.  I think it was replaced by the Rafale.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by straffo
hmmm ... I was more thinking of lethal weapon but your post is correct.

Concerning the F8 I don't know.

I could be off base here, but I think they kept the F8 because they held onto the Foch for so long. When they developed the Navalized Rafale, they didn't want to be constrained by retaining an operational requirement for flying from the Foch or Clemenceau.

Does anyone know if the Rafale ever operated on those CVs? I mean aside from the expermental and test phases, were they ever operationally deployed?

-Sik

[Sparks]

Fishu - no-one is condoning previous arms trades with dubious countries.  As I said earlier,  raising past stupid acts as evidence of acceptability doesn't make future acts sensible.

China is a different ball game.  They don't want the arms because they can't produce enough of their own - they are an exporter.  They want the technology.  And Straffo - it isn't quantity that is the concern it's the content.  Also to look at this in terms of starting a war in the short term is naive.  Chinese view their policy in decades.  Do you really want the Chinese government as the major superpower on the planet ??? It is a very real possibility.

Chinese government doesn't play to an electorate.....

In the months preceding the ten-year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations Chinese government and party officials have reexamined and often revised the official version of the military crackdown. In April 1999, Zhu Muzhi, the president of the China Society for Human Rights Studies (a government think tank) observed that, "If the way we handled the Tiananmen crisis was incorrect, we would not have today’s prosperity. China would be in chaos. The people would have risen and resisted the government." He added that, "At that time, the police were poorly equipped ... They had never witnessed such large-scale protests ... They did not have rubber bullets then nor gas masks... The only weapons they had were their guns."

That quote from here

In 10 years we could be facing east knowing that the fingers on the buttons in Beijing have as good or better systems at their disposal than us................... and who will remember it was Chirac that gave them it ???

[Sandman]

Hmmm... doesn't Israel have a history of selling stuff to China?

[Sparks]

So Oboe  - laying aside the stupidity of arming Sudia Arabia, Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw), India and all the other nut job countries - your reasoning is that because we in the west like to buy cheap consumer goods and because China has a large chunk of US debt it's OK to sell them the latest weapons systems.

"Hey nice fridge - thanks.  Btw that missile of yours is waaaay out of date - here buy this one and copy it"

Tell it to your grand kids.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Sparks
They don't want the arms because they can't produce enough of their own - they are an exporter.

So they want to sell weapons with better technology to all their neightbours and leave themselves with the old technology? ok.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Sikboy
I could be off base here, but I think they kept the F8 because they held onto the Foch for so long. When they developed the Navalized Rafale, they didn't want to be constrained by retaining an operational requirement for flying from the Foch or Clemenceau.

Does anyone know if the Rafale ever operated on those CVs? I mean aside from the expermental and test phases, were they ever operationally deployed?

-Sik

I think you got it exactly right, Sik.   I couldn't find any indications of operational deployments for the Rafale on either Foch or Clemenceau, just tests.

[Sparks]

Fishu ..... Huh ??????

Nooo the other way round - they want the new technology for themselves while they sell the obsolete stuff to pay for it.

[storch]

IIRC the french retired the F8-E (FN) in 1999 the last squadron being flotille 12F aboard the Clemençeau.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Sparks
So Oboe  - laying aside the stupidity of arming Sudia Arabia, Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw), India and all the other nut job countries - your reasoning is that because we in the west like to buy cheap consumer goods and because China has a large chunk of US debt it's OK to sell them the latest weapons systems.

"Hey nice fridge - thanks.  Btw that missile of yours is waaaay out of date - here buy this one and copy it"

Tell it to your grand kids.

No, that's not my reasoning - sorry if I wasn't clear.   I think its stupid to arm other countries, nutjobs or not.    But I don't think its right to criticize France for selling arms to China when, in my view, the US sells arms to much more dangerous client states.     Some criticize France for selling arms to China because US soldiers may have to fight against them.   We ourselves helped arm Iraq, and then sent our boys in to fight.    I think its doubtful that we will end up in a war against China - and I hate the fact that we are in so much debt to them.

The future for everyone's grand kids looks bleak to me, for so many reasons.    I use my vote to try and stop what's happening; I boycott Walmart.    I'm open to further suggestions...

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Sparks
Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw),

I don't know anything about the Russian/Pakistan arms trading. Are we talking small arms here?

-Sik